'^1 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


^r. 


Shelf 


Division  jOiZ:^\\      I 

Section    ,W^A, 
Number (.  ]B3  | 


U.' 


■M^ 


,l1 


^^u 


THE 


THEOLOGICAL    EDUCATOR. 


Edited  by  ttie 

REV.    W.    ROBERTSON    NICOLL,    M.A.,   LL.D., 

Editor  of  the  "Expositor." 


DR.  CHARLES  H.  H.   WRIGHT'S 
INTRODUCTION  TO    THE   OLD    TESTAMENT. 


NEW  YORK: 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

2  AND  3,    BIBLE   HOUSE. 


AH 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 


BY  TH5^EV. 

CHARLES    H.    H.    WRIGHT,    D.D.,    Ph.D., 

BAMPTON    LECTURER    (1878)    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY   OF   OXFORD, 

DONNELLAN    LECTURER    (l88o-8l)   UNIVERSITY   OF   DUBLIN, 

EXAMINER     IN     HEBREW    AND     NEW    TESTAMENT    GREEK    IN    THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  LONDON. 


-  o V] e.  o '  .  ec  M Cc^i-ov'- 


SECOND  EDITION— REVISED. 


NEW   YORK: 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

2  AND  3,   BIBLE  HOUSE. 


PREFACE. 

nn  HE  manual  of  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
-*-  ment  now  presented  to  the  English  student 
endeavours  to  give  the  ascertained  results  of  modern 
criticism,  as  far  as  is  possible  within  very  confined 
limits.  The  lists  of  works,  EngUsh  and  foreign, 
appended  under  each  heading,  point  out  the  sources 
where  fuller  information  can  be  obtained,  and  may, 
perhaps,  stir  up  some  to  take  a  deeper  interest  in 
Biblical  studies. 

Those  lists  do  not  pretend  to  be  exhaustive. 
Among  the  books  of  special  importance  to  the  Biblical 
student  is  the  Bihliotheca  Rahhinica  of  Dr.  August 
Wiinsche,  being  a  German  translation  of  the  entire 
Midrash  Rabhah,  etc.,  with  notes,  which  has  opened 
up  that  rich  treasury  of  myth,  legend,  and  parable  to 
a  wider  circle  of  readers.  Those  ancient  Midrashim, 
notwithstanding  many  short-comings  and  mistakes, 
afford  much  information  to  the  student  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  Bihliotheca  Rahhinica  has  been  published  in 
parts  from  1880-1885,  and  contains  the  Midi^ash  on 
Genesis    (pp.    558),  on  Exodus   (pp.  408),   Leviticus 


vi  PREFACE. 

(pp.  298),  Numbers  (pp.  676),  Deuteronomy  (pp.  184), 
besides  the  Megilloth,  Esther  (pp.  102),  Ruth  (pp. 
98),  Lamentations  (pp.  176),  Koheleth  (pp.  165), 
Song  of  Songs  (pp.  208),  the  Pesikta  of  Kab  Kahana 
(pp.  300),  and  the  Midrash  on  Proverbs  (pp.  76). 
These  numbers  include  the  Notes,  but  not  the  Intro- 
ductions. The  extent  and  importance  of  the  work  is 
thus  apparent. 

In  England  besides  the  Si^eaker's  Commentary  and 
the  Pulpit  Commentary,  much  new  work  has  been 
done.  The  Bishop  of  Gloucester's  Old  Testament 
Commentary  for  English  Readers,  5  vols.,  royal  8vo, 
especially  on  the  Prophets,  is  worthy  of  the  attention 
of  scholars,  though  not  referred  to  in  our  pages. 
Bishop  Wordsworth's  Holy  Bible  with  Notes  and 
Introductions  will  often  repay  a  reference.  Dr.  Joseph 
Parker's  People^ s  Bible — vols,  i.-xiii.  already  published, 
including  Genesis  to  Proverbs  (Hodder  &  Stoughton) 
— is  not  critical,  though  often  highly  suggestive. 
Nisbet's  series  of  Men  of  the  Bible  has  been  occa- 
sionally referred  to,  and  might  have  been  referred 
to  throughout.  The  Religious  Tract  Society's 
scholarly  series  of  By-paths  of  Bible  Knoivledge  has 
brought  recondite  information  to  almost  every  door. 
The  Records  of  the  Past,  or  the  English  translations 
of  the  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  monuments,  edited 
by  S.  Birch,  LL.D.,  vols,  i.-xii.,  ought  to  be  more 
known  ;  and  the  new  series,  edited  by  Professor 
Sayce,  of  which  four  volumes  have  already  appeared, 


PREFACE.  vii 

promises  still  better  thlDgs.  The  Porta  Linguarum 
Orientalium,  edited  by  J.  H.  Petermann  and  H.  L. 
Strack,  deserves  more  attention  than  might  appear 
from  the  casual  references  made  to  it  in  these  pages. 
It  embraces  two  volumes  of  Assyrian  grammar  and 
chrestomathy  by  Friedr.  Delitzsch,  1889,  and  an 
Ethiopic  grammar  and  chrestomathy  by  Pratorius. 
Gustav  Dalman  is  writing  in  the  same  series  a 
grammar,  with  chrestomathy,  of  the  Palestinian 
Talmud.  The  publications  of  the  Palestine  Ex- 
ploration Fund  are  in  many  ways  valuable,  as  well 
as  the  works  of  the  German  Society  estabhshed  for 
the  same  purpose.  Especially  useful  is  Names  and 
Places  in  the  Old  Testament  and  Apocrypha,  1887, 
issued  by  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund.  Schiirer's 
massive  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter 
Jesu  Ghristi,  2nd  ed.,  1886,  1889,  1890,  cannot  be 
dispensed  with.  T.  and  T.  Clark  have  begun  the 
publication  of  an  English  translation.  Nor  must 
Hatch's  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,  1889,  be  forgotten. 

The  problems  connected  with  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament  are  numerous  and  intricate. 
Although  so  much  has  been  effected  in  modern  times, 
the  field  of  research  cannot  yet  be  considered 
exhausted.  Discoveries  in  the  departments  of 
Assyriology  and  Egyptology  have  done  miich  to 
elucidate  the  meaning  v^f  many  passages  of  Holy 
Writ,  but  they  have  sometimes  brought  to  light 
new   difficulties.      Those   discoveries    are    even   now 


y 


^iii  PREFACE. 

only  in  their  infancy,  and  much  has  yet  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  aid  of  the  spade  and  pickaxe 
in  Palestine  and  Egj^t,  and  elsewhere,  ere  we  can 
regard  many  Old  Testament  questions  as  finally 
settled. 

In  every  field  of  scientific  investigation  hypotheses 
have  been  found  necessary  in  order  to  group  together 
known  facts,  and  to  lead  onward  to  new  discoveries. 
Theories  which  have  proved  ultimately  to  be  erroneous 
have  yet  frequently  been  productive  of  great  results. 
The  earnest  seeker  after  truth  in  the  department  of 
Biblical  research  ought,  therefore,  to  be  tolerant  of 
speculations,  even  when  opposed  to  his  holiest 
sentiments  and  convictions.  Ko  theory  of  modern 
days  has  created  more  repugnance  among  orthodox 
expositors  than  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory  of  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  yet  it  is  well 
to  observe  that  even  the  strongest  defenders  of  that 
theory,  while  insisting  on  the  very  late  compilation  of 
the  Pentateuch,  maiutain  that  the  substance  of  many 
of  its  narratives  and  laws  was  in  existence  at  a  far 
earlier  date.  The  theory  does  not  necessarily  make 
the  Pentateuch  a  mere  fabrication  of  desi<mingj 
priests,  as  is  sometimes  affirmed.  In  setting  forth 
the  consequences  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis, 
this  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind. 

The  Old  Testament  Scriptm^es  ha^e,  alas  !  been 
treated  by  many  critics  with  an  irreverence  which 
cannot   be   too   strongly  condemned.     On  the  other 


PREFACE.  ix 

hand,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  opinions  branded 
as  iiTeverent  and  dangerous  in  one  age,  have  some- 
times been  unanimously  accepted  in  another.  The 
dangers  predicted  by  timid  theologians  have  often 
proved  to  be  uni^eal.  Instances  of  this  fact  will 
be  found  mentioned  in  the  following  pages.  When, 
however,  we  consider  the  reverence  due  to  the 
Scriptm^es  as  the  channel  of  Divine  revelation,  one 
cannot  wonder  at  such  fears.  The  antagonists  of 
"  faith "  have  often  exultingly  cried,  like  tha 
children  of  Edom  in  the  day  of  Jerusalem 
(Ps.  cxxxvii.  7),  "Rase  it,  rase  it,  even  to  the 
foundation  thereof."  But  the  shout  has  not  been 
one  of  victory,  like  that  of  the  children  of  Israel 
before  the  walls  of  Jericho.  The  Bible  still  firmly 
holds  its  place  as  "  the  Book  of  Books "  even  at  the 
close  of  the  nineteenth  century.  New  generations  of 
sceptics  continue,  no  doubt,  to  predict  the  coming 
"  eclipse  of  faith,"  but  are  destined  to  prove  in 
due  time  "false  prophets,"  like  those  before  them. 

A  recent  author  has  shown  that  the  introduction 
of  law  into  the  phenomena  of  the  spiritual  world  is 
free  from  many  of  the  dangers  which  seemed  likely 
to  beset  such  an  attempt.  The  assertion  of  modern 
criticism  is  that  the  phenomena  which  characterise 
the  literatui-es  of  other  nations  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  books.  But  even  should  the  assertion 
prove  true,  the  fact  (when  rightly  understood)  wall 
not  lessen  the  reverence  for  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 


X  PREFACE, 

Those  writings  are  in  many  aspects  wholly  unique. 
They  have,  however,  a  human  side  as  well  as  a 
Divine.  The  Divine  and  the  human  element  meet 
together  in  the  written  Word,  as  well  as  in  "the 
Word  made  flesh." 

The  Synagogue  and  the  Church  have  rightly  main- 
tained that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  the 
work  of  Divinely-inspired  men.  There  are  certain 
landmarks  which  no  flood  of  advancing  criticism  will 
ever  sweep  away: — 

"  The  floods  have  lifted  up,  Jehovah  1 
The  floods  have  lifted  up  their  voice  j 
The  floods  lift  up  their  waves. 
Above  the  voices  of  many  waters, 
The  mighty  breakers  of  the  sea, 
Jehovah  on  high  is  mighty. 
Thy  testimonies  are  very  sure  : 
Holiness  becometh  Thine  house, 
Jehovah  !  for  evermore." — Ps.  xciii.  3-5. 

The  conclusion  of  the  author  of  the  Ejiistle  to  the 
Hebrews  remains  as  true  as  ever :  "  God,  having  of 
old  time  spoken  unto  the  fathers  in  the  prophets 
by  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners,  hath  at 
the  end  of  these  days  spoken  unto  us  in  His  Son." 

In  issuing  a  new  book  on  the  Old  Testament,  I 
am  painfully  reminded  of  the  loss  of  some  friends 
who  assisted  me  by  their  kindly  aid  and  counsel  in 
former  works.  Professor  Franz  Delitzsch's  death,  on 
March  3rd,  1890,  put  an  end  to  a  warm  fi-iend- 
ehip  of  over  twenty-five  years,  and  has  left  a  blank 


PEE  FACE.  xi 

which  will  long  be  felt  in  the  ranks  of  Old  Testament 
expositors.  His  profound  scholarship  and  earnest 
piety  need  no  more  than  a  passing  reference.  The 
death,  May  22nd,  1889,  of  Dr.  William  Wright, 
Professor  of  Arabic  in  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
who  was  universally  acknowledged  as  in  the  foremost 
rank  of  Semitic  scholars,  has  closed  an  unbroken 
friendship  of  considerably  more  than  thirty  years, 
which  began  when  I  was  his  pupil  in  Trinity  College, 
Dublin.  The  loss  of  two  such  eminent  scholars  will 
long  be  regretted.  The  Lectures  on  the  Comparative 
Grammar  of  the  Semitic  Languages  of  Professor 
WilUam  Wright,  just  published  under  the  able 
editorship  of  Professor  W.  Pobertson  Smith,  his 
successor  in  the  Cambridge  chair,  are  a  contribution 
of  great  importance  to  the  Biblical  student. 

I  was  not  aware  until  after  this  manual  had  been 
sent  to  press  that  the  Kev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  Canon 
of  Christ  Church,  and  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
at  Oxford,  had  undertaken  a  work  of  the  same 
chai  acter,  though  considerably  more  extensive  in  its 
aims.  Professor  Driver's  work  is  in  the  press,  and 
will  be  published  in  the  early  part  of  next  year. 
The  same  able  Hebraist  is  taking  part  in  a  new 
Hebrew-English  Lexicon,  based  on  the  latest  editions 
of  Gesenius  by  MUhlau  and  Volck.  The  plan  of  the 
work  is  due  to  two  eminent  American  scholars. 
Professors  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs,  and  Dr.  Brown  of  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  the  latter 


xii  PREFACE. 

being  chief  editor.  The  work  is  now  in  the  press,  and 
when  pubhshed  will  supply  a  desideratum  long  needed 
by  English  students  of  Hebrew. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  acknowledge  my  obligations 
to  the  Hev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D.,  F.T.C.D.,  Librarian 
and  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Dublin; 
and  to  Mr.  Spurrell,  M.  A.,  my  co-Examiner  in  Hebrew 
and  New  Testament  Greek  in  the  University  of 
London,  who  have  most  kindly  assisted  me  both  in 
the  reading  of  the  proof  sheets  of  this  Httle  work, 
and  by  suggestions  which  have  been  duly  embodied 
in  its  pages. 

33,  Mespil  Eoad,  Dublin, 
Nucemher  5th,  1890. 


PREFACE   TO   SECOND   EDITION. 

A  SECOND  edition  having  been  called  for  within  five 
months,  the  work  has  been  carefully  revised,  and 
improvements  suggested  by  well-known  scholars  intro- 
duced throughout.  More  could  not  at  present  be 
attempted.  Special  attention,  however,  is  directed 
to  the  Appendix,  which  supplements  and  explains 
several  points  noticed  in  the  book. 

Dublin,   June  Qth,  1891. 


CONTENTS. 

PART  L 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  Historical    Sketch    of    Inteoductions    to 

THE  Old  Testament 1 

II.  The  Printed  Hebrew  Editions  op  the  Old 

Testament 10 

III.  The  State  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  and  the 

Hebrew  MSS 14 

IV.  History     of     the    Hebrew     Punctuation, 

Hebrew  Grammars,  Lexicons,  etc.     .        .  23 

V.  The  Jewish  Massorah 31 

VI.  The  Targums,  Aramaic  Texts,  Grammars,  etc.  40 
VII.  The  Syriac  Versions  of  the  Old  Testament, 

Syriac  Texts,  Grammars,  etc.       ...  49 

VIII.  The  Greek  Versions  ......  53 

IX.  The  Ancient  Latin  Versions  ....  64 


PART  XL     THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 
THE  PENTATEUCH  :— 
X.  The  Pentateuch  in  General  .... 
XI.  Sketch    op    the    History    of    Pentateuch 

Criticism 

The  Literature  of  that  Subject     . 
Literature  on  the  Pentateuch 
XII.  The  Several  Books  of  the  Pentateuch  : 
§  1.  Genesis 


Literature 
§  2.  Exodus 

Literature 
§  3.  Leviticus    . 

Literature 


70 

85 
101 
102 

105 
107 
109 
110 
111 
112 


CONTENTS. 


The  Sevekal  Books  op  the  Pentateuch— < 
t'tnued. 

CHAP. 

§  4.  Numbers 

LiTERATUEE         

§  5.  Deuteronomy 

Literature      


PAGE 
112 

114 
114 
116 


XIII. 

§1. 

§2. 
§3. 
§4. 
§5. 

§6. 
§7. 


The  Historical  Books  :— 

The  Book  op  Joshua 118 

Literature 120 

Samaritan  Chronicle 121 

The  Book  of  Judges 122 

Literature 125 

The  Book  of  Ruth 126 

Literature 126 

The  Books  of  Samuel 127 

Literature 129 

The  Books  of  the  Kings 130 

Literature 132 

The  Books  op  the  Chronicles        .        .       .  132 

Literature 136 

The  Books  op  Ezra  and  Nehemiah        .        .137 

Literature 139 

The  Book  op  Esther 140 

Omission  of  the   Name   op  God  in  the 

Book 141 

Apocryphal  Additions 144 

Literature      ...;...  146 


XIV,  The  Poetical  Books  :— 
§  1.  The  Book  of  Job 

Subject  op  Book    . 

Critical  Questions 

Literature 
§  2.  The  Book  of  Psalms  . 

Name  and  Division 

Number  op  Psalms 

Superscriptions  and  Authorship 

Literature      .        .  .        . 


147 

149 
160 
151 
162 
163 
156 
157 
158 


CONTENTS. 


The  Poetical  Books — continued. 

CHAP.  fAGE 

§  3.  The  Book  of  Peoverbs  :— 

Name  and  Contents   .   .   ,   .   .160 
authoeship 162 

LiTERATUEE 163 

§  4.  The  Book  of  Koheleth  or  Ecclesiastes  :— 

Name,  Authorship,  and  Contents      .        .    164 
Literature 167 

§  5.  The  Song  op  Songs  :— 

Authorship  and  Contents  .        .        .        .168 
Literature 171 

XV.  The  Prophets  : — 

§  1.  On  the  Peophets  in  General  : — 

Literature .    173 


A.  The  Four  Greater  Prophets. 

§  2.  The  Book  op  Isaiah  :— 

Contents  and  Authorship  . 

First  Portion  .... 

Second  Portion 

Literature      .... 
§  3.  The  Book  op  Jeremiah 

Contents  and  Authorship   . 

Literature      .... 
§  4.  The  Book  of  Lamentations 

Literature      .... 
§  5.  The  Book  of  Ezekiel 

Contents  and  Authorship  . 

Peculiarities  op  the  Book. 

Literature      .... 
§  6.  The  Book  of  Daniel  :— 

History  and  Legends  of  Daniel 

Contents  of  the  Book  . 

Keferences  to  the  Book     . 

Apocryphal  Additions  . 

Literature      .... 
XYI.                 B.  The  Twelve  Minor  Prophet 
Literature  


175 
175 

178 
180 
182 
183 
185 
186 
187 
187 
188 
189 
191 

191 
192 
194 
197 
197 


199 


Kvi  CONTENTS. 

a.  The  Nine  Pre-exilian. 

CHAP  PAGM 

§   1.    HOSEA 200 

Contents  and  Date 201 

LiTERATUEE                     202 

§  2.  The  Book  of  Joel 202 

Contents  and  Style 203 

Liteeature 204 

§  3.  The  Book  op  Amos  : — 

Contents 205 

Literature 205 

§  4.  The  Book  of  Obadiah  :— 

Name  and  Contents 206 

Literature 207 

§  5.  The  Book  of  Jonah 207 

History  or  Allegory    .        .        ,        .        .  208 

Literature .  212 

§  6 .  The  Book  of  Micah  :— 

Contents  and  Authorship   ....  213 

Literature 215 

§  7.  The  Book  of  Nahum 215 

Literature 216 

§  8.  The  Book  of  Habakkuk 216 

Literature 217 

§  9.  The  Book  of  Zephaniah 218 

Literature 219 

h.   The  Three  Post-exHian. 

§  10.  The  Book  of  Haggat        .....  219 

Literature              220 

§  11.  The  Book  of  Zechariah  :— 

The  First  Part       ......  221 

The  Second  Part 222 

Literature 224 

§  12.  The  Book  of  Malachi     .        -        .        .        .  225 

Literature      ...,.,.  226 

Appendix =        ,       .       .  227 


PAET    I. 


CHAPTER    I. 
HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF  INTBOBUCTIONS. 

1.  "  y  NTRODUCTIONS "   to    the   Old   and   New 

J-  Testament  Scriptures  are  of  comparatively 
recent  growth.  The  monk  Adrian  wrote  in  the 
fifth  century  an  ctcraywy^  et?  ra.^  ^eux?  ypacf>d<;,  but 
it  contained  little  of  what  would  now  be  compre- 
hended under  the  title.  See  Ad.  Merx,  Uine 
Rede  vom  Auslegen  ins  hesondere  des  A.  T.,  1879. 
The  Instituta  regularia  divince  legis,  by  Junilius 
(died  552),  quaestor  of  the  Holy  Palace  in  Constanti- 
nople, contains  in  its  first  part  a  general  introduction 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  work  of  Cassiodorius, 
senator,  De  institutione  divinarum  litteraru7n,  written 
shortly  after,  contains  much  which  would  even  now 
be  comprehended  under  the  name  of  an  "  Intro- 
duction." "Introductions"  were,  however,  almost 
unknown  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

2.  The  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  gave 
an  impetus  to  Biblical  studies  of  all  kinds.  The 
scholars  of  that  period  in  general  discussed  questions 
connected  with  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  the  con- 

1 


2  HISTORICAL   SKETCH 

troversy  then  raging  as  to  the  authority  of  Holy 
Sorij)ture  and  that  of  the  Church,  a,nd  the  non- 
canonicity  of  the  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

The  theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century  derived 
their  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament 
literature  mainly  from  Jewish  sources.  Elias  Levita, 
the  greatest  Jewish  scholar  of  the  age  (born  1474, 
died  1549),  was  the  main  link  by  which  the  Christian 
scnolars  of  that  age  were  connected  with  the  Jews 
of  tLe  preceding  ages.  J.  Keuchlin  (born  1454,  and 
died  1521),  the  first  Hebrew  grammarian  among  the 
Christians,  whose  Rudimenta  appeared  in  1506,  was 
much  influenced  by  Levita's  writings,  though  he  does 
not  seem  to  have  adopted  Levita's  pecuhar  views. 
From  Reuchlin  and  Sebastian  Miinster  (born  1489, 
<Ued  1552),  the  latter  a  good  Hebraist  and  editor  of 
Levita's  works,  Luther  and  the  other  scholars  of  that 
age  derived  their  acquaintance  with  Hebrew.  Not- 
withstanding the  sobriety  of  the  views  expressed  by 
Luther,  and  even  by  Calvin,  who  both  admitted  the 
modern  origin  of  the  vowel-points  in  Hebrew — although 
this  fact  has  been  often  strangely  denied — the  scholars 
of  the  E-eformation,  pressed  by  the  difficulties  urged 
by  their  Koman  Catholic  antagonists,  and  mth  the 
object  in  view  of  affirming  the  certainty  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  were  led  to  give  credence  to  the  state- 
ments of  modern  Jewish,  scholars  as  to  the  correctness 
of  the  Massoretic  text  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  Hebrew  system  of  vocalization  on  the 
other. 

3.  The  opinions  expressed  by  Le\dta  in  opposition 


OF  INTRODUCTIONS.  3 

to  the  generally  believed  view  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  Hebrew  punctuation  (see  chap,  iv.)  attracted  at 
first  little  attention,  especially  as  they  were  considered 
to  have  been  fully  met  and  answered  by  the  elder 
Buxtorf  in  his  Tiberias,  1620,  best  edit.  1665.  The 
publication  of  the  Arcanum  punctationis  revelatum 
(first  published  1624,  by  Erpenius,  without  the  name 
of  the  author),  opened  a  new  era.  The  work,  which 
was  a  crushing  reply  to  Buxtorf,  the  Coryph?eus  of 
Hebrew  scholarship,  was  soon  acknowledged  to  have 
been  written  by  Lud.  Cappellus,  professor  ia  Saumur 
in  France  (born  1586,  died  1658).  Cappellus  main- 
tained that  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  and  accents  were 
utterly  unknown  to  the  Biblical  writers  themselves, 
and  were  introduced  centuries  after  the  Christian  era. 
The  views  of  Cappellus  were  condemned  by  the 
greatest  Hebrew  scholars  of  his  day.  The  younger 
Buxtorf  wrote  an  able  defence  of  his  father's  views, 
Tractatus  de  j^unct.  voc.  et  accent,  in  lihh.  V.  T.  Heh. 
origine,  1648.  The  Buxtorf s,  both  father  and  son, 
and  for  a  long  time  the  great  majority  of  the  ablest 
Hebraists,  upheld  the  antiquity  of  the  vowel  points. 
The  controversy  has,  however,  long  since  been  decided 
in  the  opposite  direction.  Cappellus  wrote  in  1648-9 
a  Vindicice  of  his  early  work,  but  the  book  was  not 
published  till  1689,  long"  after  the  author's  death. 
His  views  deeply  influenced  the  learned  Joh.  Morinus, 
who  renounced  Protestantism  and  became  a  Father 
of  the  Oratory  in  Paris,  whose  Discourses  on  the 
Sam.  Pent,  were  published  in  Paris  in  1631,  and  his 
Prolegomena  in  an  edition  of  the  LXX.  in  folio,  1628. 
Only  Liber  i.  of  Morinus'  Exercit.  bihlicarum,  de  Ilel. 


4  HISTORICAL  SKETCH 

Grcccique  text,  sinceritate  lihri  duo  appeared  in  1633, 
during  his  lifetime.  He  died  in  1659,  and  his  work 
was  published  in  folio  in  1669.  Morinus'  work  was 
in  many  ways  important,  although  in  the  interest 
of  his  Church  he  maintained  the  superiority  of  the 
texts  of  the  LXX.,  Vulgate,  and  Samaritan,  to 
that  of  the  Hebrew,  and  maintained  that  God  would 
have  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  written  without  points, 
in  order  that  men  might  learn  to  submit  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Church,  instead  of  following  their 
own  piivate  judgment  ! 

4.  B.  Spinoza  (1632-1677)  was  a  decided  Pantheist, 
and  believed  the  Scriptures  to  contain  no  Divine 
revelation.  The  miracles  of  the  Bible  according  to 
him  were  purely  legendary,  and  he  maintained  that 
everything  supernatural  must  be  rejected  as  untrue. 
But  notwithstanding  such  errors,  Spinoza  as  a  Biblical 
critic  anticipated  in  many  points  the  conclusions  which 
have  been  slowly  reached  by  modern  criticism. 

5.  Richard  Simon  (born  1638,  a  Father  of  the 
Oratory  in  Paris,  died  1712),  published  in  1678  his 
Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Test.  The  book  was 
condemned  and  confiscated,  but  produced  a  lasting 
impression.  It  was  a  work  of  learning  and  research, 
and  its  conclusions,  though  then  generally  regarded 
with  horror,  would  be  now  on  many  points  con- 
sidered conservative.  According  to  Simon,  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  its  present  shape  is  not  the  work  of 
Moses.  His  theory,  as  summarised  by  Strack,  is 
as  follows  :  In  all  Eastern  states  there  have  been 
official  historiographers,  and  a  similar  class  existed 
among  the   Hebrews  since  the  days  of  Moses.     In 


OF  INTRODUCTIONS.  5 

the  case  of  the  Hebrews  their  historiographers  were, 
however,  inspired  prophets.  These  recorded  not  only 
what  was  of  importance  in  their  own  day,  but  altered, 
abridged,  and  enlarged  the  works  of  their  predeces- 
sors. All  such  writings  were  collected  by  Ezra  and 
his  successors ;  and  from  the  material  so  brought 
together,  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  ar- 
ranged in  the  form  in  which  they  are  now  extant. 

6.  The  following  works  are  of  special  importance  : — J.  H. 
Hottinger,  Thesaurus  Philologicus  sen  clavis  Scripturce,  1649. 
2nd  edit.,  enlarged,  1659,  and  after  the  death  of  the  author, 
1696.  -Bishop  Brian  Walton  (died  1661),  Prolegomena  affixed 
to  the  London  Polyglott,  1657  [see  chap,  ii.],  issued  separately 
by  Heidegger,  1673,  and  by  J.  A.  Dathe  in  1777  ;  also  by 
Francis  Wrangham,  2  vols.,  8vo,  Cantab.  1828.  J.  G.  Carpzov, 
Introductio  ad  lihros  canon.  Bibl.  Veteris  Test,  omnes^  etc. 
3rd  edit.  1741,  and  4th,  1756-7,  and  his  Critica  Sacra  Vet. 
Test,  2nd  edit.  1748.  J.  Chr.  Wolf,  Blhliotheca  Hehrcea.  The 
Old  Testament  is  treated  in  tom.  ii.  (1721)  and  iv.  (1733). 

Among  the  special  Introductions  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  following  must  be  noted  :"J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Elnleitung  in 
das  A.  T.  1780-83.  4th  edit,  five  vols.,  1823-24,  comprising 
3,199  pp.  Eichhorn  w^as  a  valuable  and  voluminous  writer. 
"J.  D.  Michaelis,  Einleitung  in  die  gottliclien  Scliriften  des 
alt.  Bundes,  1787.  The  first  volume  only  appeared,  and  was 
directed  against  Eichhorn.  Georg  Lorenz  Bauer  published  in 
1794  his  JEntwurf  einer  Binleitwig  in  die  Schriften  des  alt. 
Test.  The  3rd  edition  of  this  work  appeared  under  a  slightly 
altered  title  in  1806.  Entwurf  einer  liist.-lirit.  Einleitung^ 
etc.     Bauer  in  the  main  adopts  the  opinions  of  Eichhorn. 

The  present  century  is  peculiarly  rich  in  Introductions. 
DeiWette  in  1817  published  his  Lehrh.  der  hist.-hrit.  Einl.  in 
die  canon,  u.  aijocr.  Bilclier  des  A.  T.  The  7th  edition  of 
this  work  appeared  in  1852,  The  8th  edition,  edited  by 
Eb.  Schrader  in  1869,  is  an  Introduction  based  on  De  Wette, 


6  HISTORICAL   SKETCH 

rather  than  an  edition  of  De  Wette.     It  is,  however,  in  many 
respects  a  valuaole  work. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  work  of  De  Wette,  though 
differing  from  it  in  method  and  spirit,  Kev.  Thomas  Hartwell 
Home  published  in  1818  his  Introduction  to  the  critical  stvdy 
and  linowledge  of  the  Holy  ScrijJtures.  The  work  was  at 
first  comprised  in  three  volumes,  but  was  afterwards  increased 
to  five  thick  volumes  (the  second  volume  being  divided  into 
two).  The  10th  edition  appeared  in  1856,  the  second  volume, 
on  The  Text  of  the  Old  Testament,  having  been  edited  by  Dr. 
isamuel  Davidson.  The  opinions  therein  expressed  by  Davidson 
gave  considerable  umbrage  in  England,  though  in  most  points 
they  would  now  be  considered  conservative.  Another  edition 
of  vol.  ii.  was  issued  in  1860,  edited  by  Rev.  J.  Ayre,  which 
harmonised  more  with  the  other  portions  of  that  work. 

In  1836  and  1837  an  important  work  appeared  on  the  orthodox 
side  by  H.  A.  G.  Havernick,  already  distinguished  by  an  able 
commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  namely,  Handh.  der  histor.- 
hrit.  Einleitnng  ins  A.  T.  The  1st  vol.  appeared  in  two  parts, 
the  first  comprehending  the  general  introduction  consisting  of 
316  pp.,  the  second  part  on  the  Pentateuch,  of  644  pp.  The 
latter  portion  has  been  translated  into  English,  and  published 
by  T.  and  T.  Clark  under  the  title  :  Hist.-  Critical  Intro- 
duction to  the  Pent.,  1850.  The  2nd  vol.  was  likewise  divided 
into  two,  the  first  portion  on  the  Historical  books  (365  pp.), 
appeared  in  1839,  followed  in  1844  by  that  on  the  Prophetical 
books,  the  3rd  vol.  on  the  Poetical  books  was  published 
after  the  death  of  the  author  (which  occurred  in  1845),  in 
1849  (comprising  519  pp.),  worked  up  and  edited  by  C.  F.  Keil. 
The  2nd  edition  edited  by  Keil  did  not,  however,  extend 
beyond  the  1st  vol.,  which  was  edited  in  two  parts  in  1854 
and  1856,  that  editor  meanwhile  having  written  a  work  of  his 
own  traversing  the  same  ground. 

Heinrich  Ewald  appeared  on  the  scene  in  1843.  Ewald 
published  no  formal  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  but 
his  Biblical  works  are  so  numerous  as  to  cover  the  whole  of 
the  ground  which  would  naturally  be  embraced  in  such  a 
work.     His  commentary  on  special  books  will  be  alluded  to 


OF  INTRODUCTIONS.  7 

elsewhere.  His  Gcsoh.  des  Volkes  Israel,  iu  three  volumes, 
1843-1852,  must  here  be  noted,  the  3rd  edition  of  which 
issued  in  1864:-68,  comprises  seven  thick  volumes.  This  work 
has  been  translated  into  English  by  J.  Esthn  Carpenter,  and 
published  by  Longmans  and  Co.  in  eight  large  volumes  at  various 
dates  from  3rd  edit.,  1883.  Dean  Stanley's  History  of  the  Jewish 
Chureli,  the  6th  edition  of  which  work  appeared  in  three 
volumes  in  1875,  is  in  the  main  founded  on  the  History  of 
Ewald,  whose  opinions  on  many  points  are  reproduced  and 
set  forth  in  a  more  vivid  and  popular  st^le.  Ewald's  work 
on  Die  Alterthumer  des  VolUes  Israel,  1866,  ought  here  to  be 
mentioned,  and  his  Jahrhiicher  der  hihl.  Wisscnsohaft  in 
twelve  parts,  published  between  1848  and  1865. 

C.  F.  Keil  in  1853  published  his  Lehrhuch  der  liist.- 
krit.  Einl.  in  die  hamnisch.  Sehrift.  des  A.  T.  In  the  2nd 
edition  the  Apocryphal  books  were  added.  The  3rd  edition 
(776  pp.)  appeared  in  1873.  This  work,  like  all  Keil's  com- 
mentaries, is  written  from  a  decidedly  orthodox  standpoint. 
J.  J.  Stahelin's  Eiuleitnng  in  die  liaii.  Buclier,  published  in 
1862,  is  smaller,  but  important. 

In  England,  Dr.  S.  Davidson,  whose  edition  of  Home, 
vol.  ii.,  has  been  alluded  to  above,  published  his  own 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  Critical,  Historical  and 
Theological,  in  three  vols.,  in  1862.  The  work  contains  much 
valuable  matter,  but  exhibits  signs  of  haste,  is  written  fi'om  a 
much  more  "advanced"  standpoint  than  its  author  assumed 
in  1860.  It  is  unfortunately  permeated  by  a  bitterness  of 
spirit,  perhaps  natural  under  the  circumstances.  No  work 
of  equal  importance  has  as  yet  appeared  in  England  on  the 
orthodox  side.  An  earlier  work  of  the  same  author  on  Biblical 
Criticism  issued  in  1854,  is  still  of  importance  for  the  English 
student,  and  treats  of  many  subjects  which  would  naturally 
find  a  place  in  a  formal  Introduction.  Dr.  Davidson  published 
in  1855  another  important  work,  The  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old 
Testament  Revised.  His  work  on  The  Canon  of  the  Bible,  its 
formation,  history,  and  fluctuations,  3rd  edition,  1880,  is  a 
reprint  of  his  article  in  9th  edit,  of  the  Encyclnjjaulia 
Britannica  with  additions. 


8  HISTORICAL  SKETCH 

Friedr.  Bleek's  Elnleitung  in  das  A.  T.,  published  in  1860, 
a  year  after  the  death  of  its  author,  has  had  considerable 
influence.  The  3rd  edition,  edited  by  Ad.  Kamphausen  in 
1870,  is  specially  useful  for  students.  The  4th  edition  was 
partly  re-written  by  J.  Wellhausen  (1878),  i.e.  on  Judges, 
Samuel,  Kings,  etc.  The  5th  edit.  (1886)  is  mainly  a  reprint 
of  Bleek's  own  work.  Both  these  editions  contain  a  long 
and  Important  section  on  the  Text  of  the  Old  Test,  by 
Wellhausen. 

In  this  department  it  is  convenient  here  to  mention  Theodor 
Noldeke's  works,  his  Alt.-test.  Literatur  in  einer  Reihe  von 
Avfsdtzen  dargestellt,  1868,  and  his  UntersucJmngenzur  Kritili 
des  A.  T.,  1869.  Ab.  Geiger,  Urschrift  u.  JJeljersetzungen 
der  Bihel,  1857  ;  Fiirst,  Gesch.  des  hihl.  Lit.  in  2  vols.,  1867, 
1870,  as  well  as  his  work  on  Der  Kanon  des  A.  T.,  nach  den 
Ueherlicferiingen  in  Talmud  u.  Midrasch,  1868,  are  important 
for  students,  as  are  W.  Piobertson  Smith's  works  :  Tlie  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Chicrch,  1881,  and  The  Prophets  of 
Israel  and  their  Place  in  History,  1882,  however  much  one 
may  differ  from  the  views  therein  propounded. 

Ed.  Eeuss,  Geschichte  der  heil.  Schriften  A.  T.,  was 
published  in  1881.  A  new  and  enlarged  edition  (780  pp.) 
has  appeared  this  year,  1890.  Vatke's  Hist.-Krit.  Einleitung 
was  published  in  1886,  edited  by  Dr.  Preiss  long  after  the 
death  of  its  author,  the  literature  brought  down  to  the  present 
time.  A.  Kuenen  published  at  Ley  den  his  Hist.-Tivit.  Onder- 
zoeTi  in  1868-65,  of  the  first  part  of  which,  a  Germ,  trans., 
has  appeared,  ed.  by  Th.  Weber,  1885-1890,  as  well  as  a  French 
trans.  An  English  trans.,  of  Part,  i.,  by  P.  H.  Wicksteed,  Hist.' 
Grit.  Hist,  of  Origin  and  Comp.  of  the  Hexateuch,  has  been 
published  by  Macmillan,  1886. 

H.  L.  Strack's  short  but  important  Einleitung  appeared 
in  Zockler's  Handhtich  der  theol.  Wissenschafteji,  Band  i.,  in 
1885,  3rd  ed.  1888  ;  it  can  be  had  separately.  To  these  may 
be  added  a  small  but  well  executed  work  by  Frants  Buhl, 
Professor  in  Copenhagen,  now  in  Leipzig,  Den  gammel  testa' 
vientUge  Skriftoverlevering :  i.  Kanons  historic ;  ii.  Tekstens 
hist,    Copenhagen,    1885.     A.    Brandt  has   also   published    a 


OF  INTRODUCTIONS.  9 

Bearbeitung  of  E.  Riehm's  Einleitung  in  d.  A.  T.,  Band  i., 
Die  Tliora  unci  die  vordcren  Projpheten,  1889. 

The  Biblical  dictionaries  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  Among 
the  German  are  to  be  noted  among  the  earlier,  Winer's  Blbl. 
Realworterlucli,  2  vols,  1847,  1848  ;  the  very  convenient 
Handworterhuch  der  hibl.  AlterUims,  edited  by  Riehm  in 
2  vols.,  1884,  and  others,  especially  Herzog-Plitt,  Encyclo^cedie 
fiir  2Ji'ot.  Tlieol.  u.  Eirche  ;  Hamburger,  Beal-Encyclop(sdie 
fiir  Bihel  u.  Talmud,  1870,  1883,  and  Supplement-band,  1886. 

Among  the  English,  besides  the  Encyclojycedia  Britannica, 
which  especially  in  its  later  editions  contains  many  articles 
of  value  to  the  Biblical  student,  are  to  be  mentioned,  Kitto, 
Biblical  Literature,  1845  ;  3rd  edit,  by  W.  L.  Alexander, 
1862-70.     Smith's  BiUe  Dictionary,  3  vols,  1861,  1863. 

Several  important  works  in  this  department  have  also  been 
produced  by  Roman  Catholic  scholars  on  the  Continent,  such 
as  J.  Jahn's  (died  1816)  Einleitung  in  die  gottl.  Bilclier  des 
A.  Bundes,  1st  edition,  1793  ;  2nd  edition,  largely  increased, 
in  two  thick  volumes  (570  and  1042  pp.),  in  1802-3.  J.  G. 
Herbst  (died  1836),  Hist.-krit.  Einl.  in  die  heil.  Schriften 
des  A.  T.,  ed.  by  Welte,  1840-1844.  J.  M.  A.  Scholz  (died 
1852),  Einleitung  in  die  heilig.  Schr.  des  A.  T.,  1844-1848, 
left  unfinished.  D.  Haneberg,  Gesch.  der  bibl.  Offenb.  als 
Einl,  1850  ;  4th  edition,  1876  (882  pp.).  F.  H.  Reusch,  Lehrb. 
der  Einl.,  1859  ;  4th  edition,  1870.  Franz  Kaulen,  Einl.  in 
die  heil.  Schrift,  A,  u,  N,  T,,  1876  and  1881,  2nd  ed.  1884. 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE  F HINTED   HEBllEW  EDITIONS   OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 

1.  np  HE  first  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testa- 
-L  ment  printed  was  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
issued  in  1477  along  with  Kimchi's  commentary. 
In  1188  the  complete  Hebrew  Bible  was  printed  in 
folio  in  Soncino.  It  was  afterwards  printed  in  Pesaio 
in  1494,  and  in  Brescia  the  same  year.  The  latter 
edition  was  that  used  by  Luther,  and  the  copy  that 
belonged  to  the  great  Reformer  is  still  preserved  in 
the  Royal  Library,  Beilin, 

2.  The  Great  Rabbinical  Bibles,  so  called  because 
they  contain  the  Targums,  with  various  Jewish  com- 
mentaries, were  printed  in  four  volumes  folio,  aud 
issued  from  Bomberg's  press  as  follows:  (1)  Venice, 
1516-18,  edited  by  Felix  Pratensis.  (2)  Venice,  1524-5, 
edited  by  Jacob  Ben  Chayyim.  This  is  the  first 
edition  with  the  Massorah  Magna  (see  chap.  v.). 
(3)  Venice,  1546-48.  (4)  M,  1568.  (5) /d,  1617-19. 
(6)  Joh.  Buxtorf,  the  elder,  brought  out  his  important 
edition  in  Basle  in  1618-19.  Many  corrections 
were  introduced  in  ^lis  edition  into  the  Massorah. 
Buxtorf  unfortunately  pointed  the  Targums  after  the 
analogy  of  the  Aramaic  portions  in  Ezra  and  Daniel. 


THE  PRINTED   HEBREW  EDITIONS.     11 

(7)  The  most  important,  however,  of  the  Rabbinical 
Bibles  is  the  nSJ'D  n^np,  edited  by  Mosheh  of  JFrank- 
fort,  Amsterdam,  1724-27. 

3.  The  great  Polyglott  Bibles  are  the  following  : 
(1)  The  Complutensian,  printed  at  the  cost  of  Cardinal 
Ximenes,  in  six  folio  vols,  1514-17.  The  fii-st  four 
vols,  contain  the  Old  Testament.  The  Com2)lutensian 
gives  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Targums  and  LXX.,  all  with  Latin  translations.  The 
text  of  the  LXX.  there  given  is  that  of  Lucian  (see 
chap.  viii.).  (2)  The  Antwerp  Polyglott  was  pub- 
lished in  1569-72,  at  the  cost  of  Philip  IL,  called 
therefrom  Biblia  regia,  and  also  from  its  printer, 
Plantiniana.  Its  editor  was  Arias  Montanus.  The 
Old  Testament  is  contained  in  the  first  four  volumes. 
The  Targum  is  appended  to  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  except  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Chronicles.  (3)  The  Paris  Polyglott  consists  of  ten 
large  folios.  The  Old  Testament  is  also  contained 
in  the  first  four  volumes,  reprinted  from  the 
Antwerp  Polyglott.  The  New  Testament  occupies 
vols.  V.  and  vi.  The  last  three  volumes  contain  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Samaritan  Version 
with  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  translations  of  the  Old 
Testament,  all  provided  with  Latin  translations. 
(4)  The  most  important  is  the  London  Polyglott, 
edited  by  Bishop  Brian  Walton,  in  eight  folio  volumes, 
1657.  It  contains  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  and  the  Samaritan  Version,  the  LXX. 
with  various  readings  of  Cod.  Alex.,  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  with  the  fragments  of  the  old  Latin  trans- 
lation   (the     Itala),    and    the    Syriac    and    Arabic 


12     THE  PRINTED  HEBREW  EDITIONS 

Versions ;  the  Targums  (including  that  known  as 
the  Pseudo-Jon.  and  Jerusalem),  together  with  the 
^thiopic  Version  of  Psalms  and  Canticles,  and  a 
Persian  translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  all  with  Latin 
translations.  The  first  volume  contains  the  valuable 
Prolegomena  of  Walton.  The  last  two  volumes, 
printed  in  1669,  contain  the  Lexicon  hej^taglottum  of 
Ed.  Castell — Hebrew,  Chaldaic,  Syriac,  Samaritan, 
^thiopic  and  Arabic,  and  a  Persian  Vocabulary. 

4.  Besides  these  there  are  certain  other  important  editions. 
Menachem  ben  Jehuda  di  Lonsano  published  in  1618,  after- 
wards in  1650,  the  Pentateuch  under  the  name  iTTin  ")15<  as 
a  first  part  of  an  edition  which  was  to  have  included  the 
whole  Old  Testament.  It  contains  a  critical  commentary,  and 
a  text  founded  on  ten  MSS.  Norzi's  Massoretic  Bible  Com- 
mentary, founded  on  his  critical  codex,  completed  in  1626,  was 
first  published  by  Eaphael  Chayyim  Basila  in  his  edition  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  1742-44.  It  is  also  contained  in  the 
"Warsaw  Rabbinical  Bible.  See  for  full  description  of  these 
editions,  Strack's  Einleitung,  3rd.  ed.  p.  262. 

Of  considerable  importance  to  the  Hebrew  student  is  the 
BihUa  Hehraica  (1720)  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Professor  in  Halle, 
who  died  1738),  containing  a  collection  of  several  important 
Hebrew  MSS.,  the  Massorah,  parallel  passages  and  short  notes. 
This  Bible  can  generally  be  had  at  a  very  moderate  price.  Ken- 
nicott's  folio  edition  of  Vet.  Test.  Heh.  cum  variis  leetiombus, 
1776, 1780,  though  important,  is  in  many  respects  disappointing. 
Of  greater  value  is  De  Rossi,  Varies  Lectiones  Vet.  Test,  ex 
immensa  mamiscHptorum  editorumqiie  codicum  congerie 
TiaustcBy  four  quarto  vols.,  1784-88,  with  his  ScJiol.  critica  in 
V.  T.  libb.,  sen  sujiplementa  ad  varias  saeri  textus  lectiones, 
4to,  1798.  The  collation  of  Kennicott  extends  only  to  the 
consonants,  that  of  De  Rossi  embraces  occasionally  the  punctua- 
tion. Useful  for  ordinary  purposes  is  Dr.  S.  Davidson's  Revised 
Hebrew  Text,  1855,  with  a  digest  of  various  readings.  But 
such  works  must  be  used,  with  caution. 


OF  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT.  13 

5.  A  printed  manual  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  was  first 
issued  by  Bomberg  in  1517,  and  several  times  reprinted  at 
later  dates,  Buxtorf  also  published  such  an  edition  in  1611, 
and  J.  Leusden  in  1667,  printed  by  Athias.  Jablonksi's  4to 
edition,  which  was  founded  on  former  editions  with  a  coll. 
of  some  MSS,,  appeared  in  1699;  and  Van  derHooght's,  which 
mainly  followed  Leusden's,  appeared  first  in  1705,  and  was 
reprinted  with  minor  corrections  by  Aug.  Hahn,  1831,  and 
C.  G.  G.  Theile,  1849,  and  at  later  dates.  The  most  important 
editions  of  the  Massoretic  text,  published  in  single  parts,  but 
unfortunately  not  yet  completed,  are  those  of  S.  Baer  and  Franz 
Delitzsch,  Of  the  Pentateuch  only  Genesis  has  yet  appeared, 
published  in  1869.  Of  "the  former  prophets"  or  Historical 
Books,  no  portion  has  yet  appeared.  "  The  later  prophets  "  are 
now  complete  :  Isaiah,  1872  ;  Jeremiah,  1890  ;  Ezeldel,  1884  ; 
and  Tlie  Twelve,  1878.  The  Hagiographa  is  also  complete, 
comprising  Psalms,  1880;  Proverbs,  1880;  Job,  1875.  The 
Megilloth  (Cant.,  Euth,  Threni,  EccL,  Esther),  1886.  Libri, 
Pan.,  Ec^rcB,  et  Neh.,  1882;  Liber  Chronicorum,  1888.  No 
ordinary  student  should  be  without  these  texts.  They  contain 
important  critical  and  Massoretic  appendices,  that  of  Daniel 
with  full  Chaldee  paradigms  of  nouns,  numerals,  and  verbs, 
and  with  important  Latin  prefaces.  The  Psalter  especially 
is  most  important.  Seligman  Baer  is  the  best  Massoretic 
scholar  of  the  day.  The  student  should,  however,  note  that 
there  are  different  Massoretic  traditions  on  some  texts.  See 
Strack,  Theol.  Lit.  Zeitung,  1879,  No.  8. 

Of  unpointed  editions  we  may  note  the  Biblia  Ilebraica 
sine  jncnctis,  1701.  S.  Baer  published  an  unpointed  edition 
of  the  Pentateuch  in  1866  ;  often  reprinted  ;  and  an  edition  of 
Genesis  has  been  issued  :  JAberGeneseos  sine imnctis  exscriptus 
curavit  F.  Muhlau  et  Aem.  Kautzsch,  1868,  2nd.  ed.  1885. 

Further  information  on  the  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  will 
be  found  in  Wolf,  Bibliotheca  Jlebraea,  1715-33 ;  J.  Le  Long, 
Biblioth.  Sacra,  fol.  1723.  Bibl.  Sacra  post.  ,  .  .  J.  Le  Long 
et  C.  F.  Boerneri  iter,  curas  ord.  dispos.  emend,  etc.  ab  A.  G. 
Masch,  1778-90.  M.  Steinschneider,  Catal.  libb.  heb.  in 
biblioth.  Bodl.,  1852-60. 


CHAPTER  IIT. 

THE  STATE    OF  THE  HEBREW   TEXT  AND    THE 
HEBREW  iMSS. 

1.  Ij^OR  a  considerable  time  after  the  restoration 
-J-  of  Hebrew  studies,  the  text  of  the  Hebrew- 
Bible  was  generally  considered  to  be  free  from  all 
serious  corruption.  The  care  taken  by  the  Jewish 
copyists,  and  the  minute  directions  given  in  the 
Massorah  and  elsewhere,  all  seemed  to  point  to  such 
a  conclusion.  The  Massoretic  scholars  duly  numbered 
the  letters,  noted  the  sections  and  middle  words  of  each 
book,  called  attention  to  peculiarities  of  orthography, 
grammar  and  punctuation,  accumulating  a  mass  of 
grammatical  and  lexicographical  notes,  and  giving 
in  many  cases  a  tolerably  complete  concordance.  A 
text  guarded  so  jealously  was  very  naturally  pre- 
sumed for  all  practical  purposes  to  be  well-nigh  perfect. 
2.  But  the  examination  and  collation  of  the  exist- 
ing Hebrew  MSS.  by  degrees  dispelled  that  illusion. 
Human  nature  is  prone  to  err,  however  elaborate 
may  be  the  safeguards  against  such  a  weakness. 
Although  the  main  contents  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
have  been  well  preserved,  those  Scriptures  have  not 
come  down  to  us  in  the  exact  shape  in  which  they 
were  first  written,  or  even  as  finally  edited  by  their 


THE   STATE   OF  THE  HEBREW  TEXT.     15 

pre-Christian  revisers.  The  Massoretes  did  their  best 
to  establish  a  uniform  text,  and  in  doing  so  stereo- 
typed not  a  few  corruptions.  And  the  Hebrew  MSS., 
though  substantially  following  the  text  as  settled 
by  those  scholars,  were,  when  duly  examined  by 
Kennicott,  De  Rossi,  and  others,  proved  to  abound 
in  mistakes,  arising  from  accidental  repetitions  and 
omissions  of  letters  and  words,  in  the  latter  case 
frequently  occasioned  by  similarity  of  ending  (homoio- 
teleuton).  Numerous  blunders  arose  from  the  simi- 
larity in  form  of  many  of  the  letters  in  the  modern 
or  square  Hebrew  alphabet,  made  use  of  by  the 
Massoretes.  Such  blunders,  in  most  cases,  were  easily 
corrected  by  the  comparison  of  MSS.,  and  by  due 
attention  to  the  Massoretic  notes.  But  the  Massorah 
itself  has  been  discovered  to  be  by  no  means  uniform; 
and  notwithstanding  the  herculean  efforts  of  the  early 
scholars,  such  as  the  Buxtorfs  and  others,  we  are  only 
now  beginning  to  approximate  to  a  correct  Massoretic 
text. 

The  Massorah  (see  chap,  v.)  is  a  work  for  which 
Biblical  students  must  ever  be  grateful.  The  task 
undertaken  by  those  early  Hebrew  scholars  was  per- 
formed with  the  greatest  conscientiousness.  This  fact 
is  abundantly  proved  even  by  the  errors  left  in  many 
cases  uncorrected  in  the  text,  though  corrected  in  the 
margin.  A  Biblical  critic  cannot,  however,  admit 
the  infallibility  of  the  Massoretes,  however  greatly 
he  may  respect  their  learning. 

3.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  passed  through  serious  vicissitudes.  In 
the  persecution  in  the  days  of  Manasseh  many  copies 


16  THE  STATE  OF  THE  HEBREW  TEXT 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  probably  destroyed.  In 
the  time  of  the  prophet  Hosea,  while  altars,  contrary 
to  the  Mosaic  Law,  were  multiplied  in  the  northern 
kingdom,  the  written  Scriptures  were  comparatively 
unknown  (Hos.  viii.  12).  When  the  temple  and  its 
treasures  were  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the 
people  carried  off  into  captivity,  innumerable  copies 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  of  other  J  ewish  writings, 
necessarily  perished.  In  the  days  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  special  search  was  made  everywhere  for 
copies  of  the  Law,  in  order  to  destroy  all  such  Scrip- 
tures (1  Mace.  i.  56-58).  Similar  occurrences  took 
place  when  Jerusalem  was  captured  by  Titus,  and  in 
the  horrors  that  followed.  The  copy  of  the  Law 
brought  to  Rome  by  Titus,  which  was  probably  the 
official  copy  in  use  in  the  temple,  has  unfortunately 
perished.  At  the  close  of  the  great  rebellion  under 
Bar  Cochba  thousands  of  Jewish  scholars  perished, 
and  their  books  were  burned  with  fire.  In  the  auto- 
da-fes  of  professedly  Christian  days  many  precious 
Hebrew  MSS.  were  ruthlessly  destroyed. 

It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the  present  Hebrew 
text  should  be  found  in  many  places  corrupt.  The 
wonder  is  rather  that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  should 
have  been  preserved  in  any  form  whatever.  The 
memories  of  faithful  disciples  must  have  in  many 
cases  been  had  recourse  to  in  order  to  fill  up  gaps  in 
the  sacred  text.  The  comparative  uniformity  of  the 
Massoretic  Hebrew  MSS.  is,  as  has  been  noted,  no 
proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

4.  But  it  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
earlier  books  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  when  com- 


AND   THE  HEBREW  MSS.  17 

mitted  to  writing,  were  wi^itten  in  characters  very 
difierent  in  form  from  those  in  use  in  later  days. 
The  oldest  extant  Hebrew  alphabet  is  that  exhibited 
on  the  Moabite  stone  and  in  the  Siloam  inscription. 
The  former  monument  cannot  be  much  later  than 
the  days  of  the  great  Elijah,  the  latter  is  not 
considerably  later.  The  Hebrew  character  exhibited 
in  both  was  in  common  use  for  centuries  afterwards. 
It  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  found  on  the 
Maccabee  coins.  It  was  only  by  slow  degrees  that 
the  more  modern  square  or  Aramaic  character 
came  into  use.  The  Samaritan  alphabet  is  the 
ancient  character  in  a  more  ornamental  form.  How- 
ever strange  the  fact  may  be,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Samaritans  preserved  the  older  alphabet,  while 
the  Jews  adopted  the  more  modern.  The  mutual 
hatred  between  Jews  and  Samaritans  may  have  been 
one  of  the  causes  which  led  the  Jewish  scribes  after 
the  Captivity  to  adopt  the  Aramaic  character  for  their 
sacred  writings,  although  the  old  characters  were  still 
used  for  profane  purposes  on  coins  and  inscriptions. 

This  change  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  took  place 
long  prior  to  the  Christian  era,  and  even  prior  to 
execution  of  the  LXX.  version.  It  is  probable  it 
met  with  much  opposition,  and  was  not  acquiesced 
in  for  a  considerable  period.  Traces  of  such  oppo- 
sition may  be  discovered  even  in  post-Christian  times. 
The  Talmud  speaks  of  the  square  characters  as 
"Assyi'ian"  {Saoihedrin,  21b),  and  directs  the  Law 
to  be  written  in  that  character  {Zebach.,  62a).  It 
recognises  thus  the  novelty  of  the  new  alphabet, 
although  the  fact  was  afterwards  generally  forgotten, 

2 


18  THE  STATE   OF  THE  HEBREW  TEXT 

and  the  square  character  asserted  to  be  the  more 
ancient. 

In  the  transliteration  of  the  sacred  books  from  one 
character  to  another,  it  is  certain  that  many  blunders 
must  have  occurred.  The  vowel-letters  ('•inx),  which, 
in  the  earlier  method  of  wi-iting,  were  used  sparingly, 
were  introduced  more  extensively  at  later  periods,  in 
order  to  assist  in  fixing  the  correct  sound  of  words. 
The  invention  of  a  complete  system  of  vowel-points 
and  accents,  valuable  as  it  was,  was  centuries  later 
than  the  Christian  era  (see  chap.  iv.). 

5.  The  existing  Hebrew  MSS.  are  of  various  kinds: 
(1)  The  unpointed  synagogue  rolls,  which  are  usually 
of  parchment,  or  in  the  East,  of  leather.  These  contain 
the  Pentateuch,  and  the  five  Megilloth  (technically 
Rolls),  viz.  Song  of  Songs,  Ruth,  Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther.  (2)  Pointed  MSS.,  which 
are  generally  in  book  form,  and  are  written  both  on 
parchment  and  paper.  Most  of  these  contain  the 
Massorah,  more  or  less  complete.  Some  MSS.  have 
also  the  Targum,  which  is  occasionally  wi-itten  in 
parallel  columns;  but  in  many  cases  the  verses  of 
the  Targum  are  written  alternately  with  those  of 
the  Hebrew.  Hebrew  MSS.  are  classified  according 
to  their  country  and  characteristic  readings.  Accord- 
ing to  most  scholars,  the  present  Hebrew  MSS.  are 
considered  to  be  more  or  less  correct  copies  of  one 
pattern  codex.  But  that  view  is  not  universally 
accepted.  The  vowel-points  and  accents  have  as  yet 
been  very  partially  collated.  The  varieties  of  read- 
ing, too,  presented  in  the  Talmud  have  not  yet  been 
scientifically  collated. 


AND   THE   HEBREW  MSS.  19 

6.  The  yaii.uiitan  MSS.  of  the  Pentateuch  maj 
also  be  regarded  to  aU  intents  and  purposes  as 
Hebrew  MSS.  They  present,  indeed,  in  many  respects 
a  different  text,  and  much  fruit  was  at  one  time 
expected  from  their  collation.  Unfortunately  they 
have  proved  to  be  of  comparatively  little  importance 
for  critical  purposes.  The  text  they  present  is,  on 
the  whole,  not  earlier  than  the  Hebrew,  and  has 
been  seriously  tampered  with  for  theological  and 
polemical  purposes.  But  the  Samaritan  recension 
is  by  no  means  worthless.  It  is  of  real  importance 
when  it  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  the  LXX. 
and  the  Targums. 

Strack  in  his  Prolegomena  has  given  a  description  of  some 
of  the  ancient  Hebrew  MSS.  See  also  the  Prefaces  to  Baer 
and  Dehtzsch's  editions  of  Hebrew  Texts  noted  ch.  ii.  5. 
Strack,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Luth.  Theol.,  1875,  p.  598  ff. 
Harkavy  has  described  some  remarkable  fragments  of  MSS. 
from  Ehodes,  written  in  a  peculiar  alphabet,  in  3Ie moires  de 
VAcadeviie  Imp.  de  St.  PetersUirg,  Ser.  vii.,  Tom.  xxxii.,  1884, 
No.  8.  See  also  Derenbourg  in  the  Revue  des  £tudes  Juivesf 
X,  .311,  and  Harkavy,  Catalog  der  Samar.  Pent.  Codices, 
1874.  On  the  Samaritan  codex  itself,  which  is  simply  Hebrew 
written  in  the  more  ancient  or  Samaritan  characters,  see 
Gesenius,  Be  Pent.  Sam.  orig.  indole  et  avctorit.  comm.  phil. 
crit.,  1815.  All  the  Samaritan  MSS.  present  more  or  less 
correctly  the  same  recension.  The  MS.  at  Nablous,  though 
unquestionably  ancient,  presents  a  text  inferior  in  almost  all 
points  to  the  Massoretic.     See  more  in  chap.  vi. 

7.  The  oldest  extant  Hebrew  MS.,  the  date  of 
which  can  be  affirmed  with  certainty,  is  the  MS.  of 
the  Prophets,  punctuated  after  the  Babylonian  system. 
The  MS.  was  brought  from  the  Crimea  by  the  dis- 


20  THE  STATE  OF  THE  HEBREW  TEXT       ■ 

tinguished  Karaite  scholar,  A.  Firkowitsch,  and  is 
dated  a.d.  916.  It  is  now  in  the  Imperial  Library 
of  St.  Petersburg.  The  MS.  has  been  edited  in 
facsimile  by  H.  L.  Strack,  Proph.  Posterior.  Codex 
Bahylonicus  Petropolitanus^  St.  Petersburg,  1876,  and 
a  separate  edition,  also  in  facsimile,  of  Hosea  et  Joel 
Ijrophetoi   was  edited    by  the  same  scholar,  Leipzig, 

1875.  The  oldest  MS.  of  the  entire  Old  Testament 
belonged  also  formerly  to  Firkowitsch's  collection, 
and  is  dated  a.d.  1010. 

Owing  to  the  numerous  falsifications  which  Fir- 
kowitsch  introduced  into  the  ancient  epigraphs  in 
his  most  valuable  collection  of  MSS.,  with  the  object 
of  showing  the  superiority  of  the  MSS.  preserved  by 
the  Karaites  over  those  of  the  Pabbinical  Jews,  the 
epigraphs  in  question  have  been  deprived  of  nearly 
all  their  value,  although  Chwolson  still  maintains 
some  of  them  to  be  genuine. 

The  fabrications  in  question  have  been  discussed  by  Harkavy 
in  the  Memoires  de  VAcad.  de  St.  Petersburg,  vii.,  21,  No.  1 ; 
by  H.  L.  Strack  in  his  A.  FirTiotvitsch  u.  seine  EntdecTiungen, 

1876,  in  the  Studien  u.  Kritihen,  1876,  as  well  as  in  the  Zeit- 
schrift  derB.  M.  6^.,  xxxiv.,  163  ff. ;  the  Literar.  Centralhlatt 
for  1883,  col.  878 ;  and  by  Chwolson  in  his  Corjjus  Inscript. 
Heb.,  1882. 

There  are  other  ancient  Hebrew  MSS.,  but  not  of 
hoar  antiquity.  The  epigraph  in  a  Cambridge  MS., 
which  makes  it  to  have  been  written  in  856,  is 
also  a  manifest  fabrication.  The  epigraph  in  the 
Aleppo  codex  (the  antiquity  of  which  MS.  was  as- 
signed to  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century),  which 
was  thought   to  be  genuine  by  eminent  scholars,  is 


AND  THE  HEBREW  MSS.  21 

now  maintained  by  Wickes,  from  internal  evidence, 
to  be  likewise  a  fabrication.  See  W.  Wickes,  Treatise 
on  the  Accentuation  of  the  Twenty-one  so-called  Prose 
Boohs  of  the  Old  Testament^  1887,  and  on  the  whole 
subject  the  Introduction  to  Professor  Driver's  Notes 
on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Boohs  of  Samuel,  1890. 
The  Cairo  codex  of  the  Prophets  is  dated  897,  and 
there  is  another  Cairo  MS.  of  1028. 

8.  Apart,  too,  from  the  circumstances  mentioned 
above,  the  paucity  of  really  ancient  Hebrew  MSS. 
has  been  also  to  a  large  extent  caused  by  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  Jews  to  bury  all  sacred  MSS.  which 
were  found  to  be  either  defective  through  wear,  or 
otherwise  discovered  to  be  faulty.  The  practice  of 
nT''J3,  or  burial,  of  such  MSS.,  is  often  alluded  to  in 
the  Talmud.  See  specially  the  Masechet  Soi^herhn 
(edited  by  Dr.  Joel  Miiller,  1878),  v.  14,  15;  Strack, 
Proleg.  Critica  in  V.  T.  Heb.,  1873,  p.  42.  The  latter 
work,  now  out  of  print,  ought  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
every  student,  as  containing  a  considerable  amount 
of  information  on  subjects  which  here  can  only  be 
glanced  at,  and  many  of  which  must,  indeed,  be 
omitted ;  Prof.  Strack  is  preparing  a  new  work  on  the 
subject.  Important  articles  on  the  Hebrew  text,  by 
Rev.  Professor  T.  K.  Abbott,  Dublin,  have  appeared 
in  the  Church  Quarterly  Review  :  "  The  Massoretic 
Text  of  the  Old  Testament,"  April,  1887,  and  "  The 
Hebrew  Text  before  the  Massoretes,"  April,  1889; 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  those  articles  may  be 
reprinted  in  a  separate  form  (see  chap.  v.). 

Useful  for  popular  purposes,  as  containing  a  good  deal  of 
information,  is  The  Old  Bocwnents  and  tlie  New  Bible,  an  easy 


22  THE   STATE   OF  THE   HEBREW  TEXT. 

'  lesson  for  the  people  in  Bihlwal  Criticum.  By  J.  Paterson 
Smyth,  LL.B.,  B.D.  :  Bagster,  1890.  The  facsimile  plates  are 
specially  good. 

Important  for  students  are  :  R.  Hoerning,  Brituh  Museuvi 
Karaite  MSS.  Description  and  Collation  of  six  Karaite 
3fa7msori2)ts  of  portions  of  the  Heir  cm  Bible  in  Arabic 
characters ;  with  a  complete  reproduction  by  the  autotype 
process  of  one,  Ex.  i.  1  to  viii.  5,  in  42  facsimiles :  Williams 
and  Norgate,  1889.  D.  Chwolson,  Corpus  Inscriptionuvi 
//c,'&?'ai<?d^?'Mm  cnthaltendGrabschriften  ausderKrim  .  .  .  sowie 
auch  Schriftproben  aus  Handschrif  ten  von  ix.-xv.  Jahrhundert. 
Gesamm.  u.  erlautert,  1882.  The  Palieograph.  Soc.  Facsimiles 
of  Manuscripts  and  Inscriptions.  Oriental  Series,  edited  by 
Professor  William  AVright,  LL.D.,  1875-1883.  Ad.  Neubauer, 
Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  in  the  Bndlemn  Library  etc., 
icith  Forty  Facsimile^,  Oxford,  188fi. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREW  PUNCTUATION'. 

1.  A  LTHOUGH  much  has  been  wi^tten  on  the 
-^^^  question,  the  history  of  the  origin  of  the 
vowels  and  accents  affixed  to  the  Massoretic  text 
is  still  obscure.  Jerome  makes  no  mention  of  any- 
such  signs,  nor  are  they  referred  to  by  the  Jewish 
scholars  of  whom  mention  is  made  in  the  Talmuds. 
In  the  Talmudic  treatises,  however,  grammatical 
disquisitions  are  rare,  so  that  the  negative  evidence 
derived  from  those  sources  is  not  entirely  conclusive. 
The  invention  of  the  vowel  points  and  accents  was 
generally  ascribed  to  Ezra  by  the  Jewish  scholars 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  that  theory  was  regarded 
as  moderate,  because  there  were  then  scholars  who 
maintained  that  the  invention  of  the  vowels  went  back 
to  the  age  of  Moses,  and  even  to  an  earlier  period. 
The  theory  of  the  invention  of  the  points  by  Ezra  has 
been  found  to  rest  entirely  upon  the  misunderstanding 
of  a  passage  in  the  Talmud,  Megilla,  3  a.  (See  J. 
Derenbourg,  Manuel  du  lecteur,  edited  from  a  Yemen 
MS.  now  in  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  in  the  Journal 
Asiat.,  1870,  published  separately,  Paris,  1871.)  The 
modern  invention  of  the  points  was  first  taught  by 
Elias  Levita,  in  his   great  work,  the  Massoreih-ha~ 


24  THE   HISTORY  OF  THE 

Massoret/i,  published  in  1538.  The  publication  of 
that  work  created  a  new  epoc>,'-  in  Hebrew  literature, 
Elias  Levita  was  constantly  visited  by  those  eager  to 
imbibe  some  of  his  learning,  and  for  a  time  even 
Reuchlin  was  his  pupil.  Levita's  views,  though  com- 
bated ably  by  his  learned  co-religionist,  Azariah  de 
Eossi,  in  1574-5,  gradually  prevailed.  His  opinions 
were  presented  by  Cappellus  in  a  form  which  Levita 
himself  would  not  have  given  to  them.  The  view  of 
Levita  and  Cappellus  on  the  point  is  now  universally 
accepted  by  scholars,  although  for  many  generations 
it  was  assailed  by  earnest  men  as  wholly  subversive 
of  the  truths  of  revelation.  Compare  Dr.  John 
Owen's  work  on  the  Integrity  and  Purity  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  Text,  issued  in  1659,  and  his 
comments  there  on  Walton's  Prolegomena^  to  the 
London  Polyglott. 

2.  The  student  must,  however,  be  on  his  guard 
against  being  led  astray  by  the  detailed  statements 
put  forth  (as  was  then  believed  on  good  authority) 
by  even  such  scholars  as  Graetz,  Delitzsch,  Ginsburg 
(in  his  edition  of  Levita's  Massoreth-ha-Massoreth, 
pp.  61-63),  Kalisch,  Heh.  Gram.  (Part  ii.,  pp.  63,  64), 
and  others,  in  which  the  names  even  of  the  early 
punctuators  are  given.  Those  statements  were  based 
upon  the  epigraphs  unfortunately  proved  to  have  been 
partially  forged  by  Firkowitsch.  (See  chap.  iii.  7.) 
It  is  tolerably  certain  that  the  punctuation  of  the 
Hebrew  text  was  the  work  of  scholars  between  the 
sixth  and  eighth  centuries;  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  two  systems  now  extant  were  preceded  by  some 
ruder  and  less  perfect  method  of  vocalization,  intro- 


HEBREW  PUNCTUATION.  25 

dncecl  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  beginners  in  the 
difficult  task  of  reading  Hebrew.  Wickes,  in  his 
work  on  the  Hebrew  Prose  Accents  (1887),  p.  144, 
has  pointed  out  conclusively  that  the  so-called  Baby- 
lonian punctuation,  which  was  superlinear,  is,  though 
an  Oriental  punctuation,  not  identical  with  the  Oriental 
punctuation,  and  he  even  maintains  that  it  must 
have  been  later  than  the  usual  or  Palestinian  system. 
See  also  Strack  in  the  Zeitschrift  f.  Luth.  Theol.^ 
1877,  p.  21. 

3.  The  vowel-points  in  Arabic  were,  like  those  in 
Hebrew,  a  very  modern  invention,  and  their  intro- 
duction into  the  Koran  was  at  first  opposed.  (See  on 
the  Arabic  points,  Noldeke,  Gesch,  des  Qordns,  p.  309.) 
In  Syriac  different  stages  of  punctuation  can  be 
distinctly  traced,  for  there  are  :  (1)  wholly  unpointed 
texts ;  (2)  texts  marked  with  diacritic  signs,  which, 
though  not  marking  all  the  vowels,  afford  material 
help  to  the  reader;  and  (3)  texts  vocalized  with  either 
Greek  or  Syriac  vowels.  But  such  successive  stages  in 
Hebrew  have  not  yet  been  discovered  in  extant  MSS. 

4.  When  the  Palestinian  system  of  punctuation 
was  finally  adopted  by  the  Kabbinites,  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable that  the  punctuation  known  as  the  Babylonian 
was  in  many  cases  obliterated.  The  punctuation  in 
MSS.  seems  to  have  been  often  added  by  a  different 
hand,  or  possibly  by  the  same  scribe  at  a  different 
sitting. 

Upon  the  whole  of  this  subject  the  student  should  consult 
Dr.  C.  D.  Ginsburg's  valuable  edition  of  The  Massoreth-Jia. 
Massoreth  of  EUas  Letita  in  Hebrew  and  English,  with 
critical  and  explanatory  notes,  and  a  life  of  Elias  Levita,  1867, 


26  THE   HISTORY   OF  THE 

as  also  the  same  scholars  edition  in  English  of  Jacob  hen 
Chajiin's  Introduction  to  the  Rabbinical  Bible,  2nd  edition, 
1867.  Buxtorf's  Tibei'ias  sive  Comm.  Masoreticits  Trijylex, 
1620,  last  edition  1665.  Leusden's  PMlolor/vs  Ilcbrcsvs, 
1739.  Hansen,  Interjrretatio  Masora  macjnm  text/iialU, 
Kjobenliavn,  1733-1787.  Wickes  has  some  judicious  remarks 
on  the  subject  in  his  work  on  the  Ilebrejv  Prone  Accents 
(1887),  pp.  5-8.  and  Professor  Driver's  Introduction  in  his 
Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Boohs  of  Samuel,  1890,  is 
indispensable  for  the  English  student.  Harris'  articles  in  the 
Jewish  Quarterly  Revieio,  1889  (see  p.  34),  give  a  useful 
summary  of  the  history.  See  Strack,  Die  biblisch.  u.  massoret. 
Handschnften  in  Tschvfuthale  in  the  Zeitsehrift  f.  luth. 
Theol.,  1875. 

5.  The  vagaries  of  the  short-lived  Hutchinsonian 
school,  including  among  others  the  lexicographer 
Parkhurst — still  strangely  viewed  in  some  quarters 
in  England  as  an  authority — need  not  bo  more  than 
referred  to.  Independently  of  those  who  actually 
followed  the  follies  of  Hutchinson,  and  sought  to 
invent  a  new  Hebrew  language  for  themselves,  there 
were  many  able  scholars,  such  as  Lowth,  Blayney, 
Horsley,  and  others,  who  had  often  recourse  to  the 
wildest  conjectures  in  the  way  of  emendation  of  the 
Massoretic  text,  and  whose  proposed  emendations  ran  in 
many  instances  entirely  counter  to  the  now  ascertained 
principles  of  Hebrew  grammar  and  syntax.  However 
far  we  may  be  from  affirming  the  infallibility  of  the 
Massoretic  text  and  punctuation,  the  vowel  points, 
and  even  the  accents  affixed  by  the  Massoretes,  are 
not  only  valuable  as  preserving  to  us  the  traditional 
reading  of  the  ancient  text,  but  are  also  equally  valu- 
able as  preserving  the  true  grammatical  inflexions  of 
the  Hebrew.     Although  the  ancient  Versions  aie  of 


HEBREW  PUNCTUATION.  27 

importance  in  the  correction  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
yet  on  the  whole  the  latter  has  been  preserved  by 
the  Massoretes  in  a  far  more  correct  form  than 
exhibited  in  any  ancient  version  whatever ;  and  the 
charges  often  so  recklessly  made  as  to  the  wilful 
perversions  of  the  sacred  text  by  the  Jewish  scholars, 
when  examined  into,  rest  upon  no  solid  basis. 

6.  The  two  systems  of  punctuation  extant  in  Hebrew 
are :  (1)  The  elaborate  system  exhibited  in  all  the 
printed  Hebrew  Bibles,  which  was  brought  to  its 
present  perfection  by  the  scholars  of  Tiberias,  and  is 
now  known  as  the  Palestinian  system.  In  this  system 
the  vowels  and  accents  are  placed  partly  above  and 
partly  below  the  consonants  to  which  they  belong, 
special  accentual  signs  not  found  elsewhere  being  made 
use  of  in  the  Books  of  the  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job. 
(2)  The  existence  of  the  less  perfect  Babylonian  or 
Assyrian  system  of  punctuation  was  first  made  known 
to  scholars  in  1840,  and  was  more  fully  described  in 
Pinner's  Prospectus  of  the  Odessa  MSS.,  1845.  In 
the  Babylonian  system,  which  is  generally  considered 
older  than  that  of  Tiberias — though  Wickes,  as  already 
noted,  has  given  strong  reasons  against  that  opinion — 
the  vowel  signs  and  accents  are  almost  uniformly 
placed  above  the  consonants.  The  Babylonian  vowel 
signs  have  been  proved  to  be  rude  modifications 
of  the  three  vowel-letters,  J5,  1,  "i ,  the  initial  letters 
of  the  names  of  the  several  accents  being  made  use 
of  as  signs  to  indicate  those  accents.  A  large  number 
of  Hebrew  MSS.  have  lately  been  brought  from  the 
East  in  which  this  punctuation  is  still  preserved,  and 
it  is  highly  probable  that  in  not  a  few  MSS.  the 


28  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 

Babylonian  punctuation  has  been  washed  out,  and 
the  Palestinian  substituted. 

Strack's  magnificent  Codex  Bahylonicus  PetvojJolitanus,  and 
his  edition  of  Hoaea  and  Joel  (see  ch.  iii.  7),  are  the  best 
specimens  of  Hebrew  texts  furnished  with  these  points.  A 
beautifully  printed  Chaldee  or  Aramaic  text,  pointed  after 
the  Babylonian  system,  is  exhibited  in  Merx's  ClirestomatMa 
Targximica,  1888,  which  contains  also  a  list  of  Babylonian 
MSS.,  and  for  cheapness  and  accuracy  may  well  be  commended 
to  all  students.  The  full  title  is  :  direct.  Targumica  qnam 
cflllatis  nil).  MSS.  antiq.  Tib.  editionibicsque  imjjressis  celeb. 
ad  codices  vocalibus  Babylonicis  instrnctos,  edid.  adn.  crit.  et 
gloss,  instruxit  Ad.  Merx.     See  also  ch.  v.  4. 

7.  It  may  be  well  to  notice  :  Gesenius,  Gesch.  der  hebr.  Spr. 
und  Schriff,  1815.  Steinschneider,  Bibliogr.  Handb.  ilber 
die  tJieor.  u.  praM.  Literatur  fur  hebr.  Sprachlmnde,  18o9. 
Gesenius,  Tliesaurns  phU.-crit.  ling.  Hel).  et  Cliald.,  3  vols, 
4to,  last  part  of  3rd  vol.  by  Rodiger,  1835-1858,  is  still  a 
veritable  treasure-house  of  Biblical  learning.  Of  Gesenius' 
Heb.  imd  Cliald.  Handwdrterb,  the  9th  and  subsequent  editions 
have  been  neu  bearheitet  von  F.  Miihlau  u.  W.  Volck,  1883  to 
1890.  While  this  manual  Lex.  of  Gesenius  has  been  improved 
in  every  successive  edition,  no  English  translation  has  appeared 
since  that  of  Tregelles,  published  by  Bagster  in  1853.  Hence 
in  many  respects  B.  Davies'  Student's  Heb.  Lex.,  1872,  is  more 
useful  for  English  students  unacquainted  with  German. 
J.  Flirst,  Heb.  tind  Chald.  Handwdrterb.  is  of  importance, 
though  not  equal  to  Gesenius.  The  3rd  edition  by  V.  Eyssel, 
appeai-ed  in  1876.  A  4th  edition  of  an  English  translation  of 
the  2nd  German  by  S.  Davidson  in  1871,  which  is  fuller  and 
more  accurate  than  Fiirst.  Fried.  Delitzsch's  Proleg.  eines 
netien  Heb.- Aram disch.  W.B.  z.  A.T.  is  important. 

Buxtorf,  Heb.  et  Cliald.  Concordantice  appeared  in  1632  in 
folio.  An  improved  edition  by  B.  Bar  in  1867.  J.  Fiirst, 
Concord.  Heb.  atqve  Chald.,  in  foL,  1840,  much  improved,  but 
with  fanciful  etymologies.  C.  Noldii,  Concord. particnlaruni 
eirceo-cJiald.  issued  in  1679,  recens.  J.  G.  Tympius  in  1734,  is 


HEBREW  PUNCTUATION.  29 

still  the  only  available  work  in  that  department.  An  English 
edition  of  Buxtorf  s  Concordance  was  issued  by  B.  Davidson 
in  1876.  The  Englishman'' s  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  Concordance, 
2nd  edit.,  1860,  deserves  mention,  as  also  The  HehraisV s  Vade 
3Iecuvi,  1867,  both  published  by  Bagster.  Dr.  S,  Mandelkern, 
of  Leipzig,  has  issued  a  prospectus  of  Die  Jieuhearheitete  Heh.- 
Chald.  Bihel  Concordanz,  likely  to  surpass  its  predecessors. 

In  grammar,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention:  Gesenius, 
Ansfiihrl.  gram.-hrit.  Lehrgeh'dude,  1817.  His  smaller  Hel). 
gvavim.,  first  issued  in  1813,  passed  through  many  editions 
under  its  author's  eye,  and  afterwards  as  edited  by  Rodiger. 
The  22nd  and  subsequent  editions  by  E.  Kautzsch  have  been 
entirely  rewritten,  the  25th  in  1889  much  improved.  The 
American  scholar  E.  C.  Mitchell  has  issued  B.  Davies'  trans- 
lation "thoroughly  revised"  in  1880.  Ewald's  Lehrhuch  first 
appeared  in  1827,  the  8th  edition  in  1870.  Most  important 
for  English  students  is  the  Syntax  of  this  work  translated  by 
Jas.  Kennedy  :  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1879.  Kennedy  has  also  pub- 
lished his  own  Introd.  to  Bib.  Hebrew,  presenting  graduated 
instruction,  1889.  J.  Olshausen,  Lehrbuch,  published  in  1861 
is  valuable,  though  the  author  died  vrithout  waiting  the  Syntax. 
Olshausen's  work  touches  upon  compar.  Semitic  grammar. 
Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith  has  just  published  the  late  Prof. 
W.  Wright's  Lectures  on  Comimrative  Semitic  Grammar, 
Camb.  Univ.  Press,  1890.  In  Italian,  Luzzat^s  grammatical 
works  are  most  important,  1853-69.  Bottcher's  AusfUhrl. 
Lehrb.,  issued  in  two  royal  8vo  vols.,  1866,  1868  (embracing 
over  1,300  pp.),  is  a  great  grammatical  concordance.  The 
author  died  ere  he  reached  the  Syntax.  Important  are :  F.  E. 
Konig,  Hist-hrit.  Lehrgeb.,  1881  (first  half).  B.  Stade,  Lehrh. 
(first  half),  1879.  In  English,  A.  B.  Davidson  wrote  a  valuable 
Introd.  Heb.  Grammar,  and  frequently  reprinted,  1876.  The 
following  are  by  American  scholars,  W.  H.  Green,  Grammar, 
4th  edit..  Parti.,  1888  ;  Part  ii..  Syntax,  1889.  W.  R.  Harper, 
Elements  of  Hebrew  by  inductive  method,  10th  edit.,  1889. 
Elements  of  Syntax,  1888  ;  Introd.  Heb.  Method  and  Manual^ 
4th  edit.,  a  book  of  useful  exercises,  1888.  Most  important  is 
Driver's  Hebrew  Tenses,  2nd  edit.,  1881.    H.  L.  Strack's  useful 


30  HISTORY  OF  THE  HEBREW  PUNCTUATION. 

small  Ilel).  Grammar,  4tli  enlarged  edit.,  1891,  with  Krercue.s-, 
translated  by  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  is  to  be  had  both  in  German 
and  English.  Strack  and  Siegfried's  Lelirh.  der  neuheh. 
SpracJie  und  Litt.  1884,  deserves  to  be  better  known.  A.  B. 
Davidson's  Ontlines  of  Heb .  Accentuation  appeared  in  18ol, 
but  the  accents  of  the  Hebrew  are  best  treated  by  W.  Wickes, 
the  Poetical,  1881,  the  Prose  in  1887,  both  published  by  the 
Clarendon  Press,  Oxford.  I.  Nordheimer's  Heh.  Gram.,  2  vols., 
appeared  in  New  York,  1838,  1841  ;  2nd  edit.,  1842.  G. 
Bickell's  Ovtlines  of  Heh.  Grammar,  trans,  by  S.  I.  Curtiss, 
Leipzig,  1877,  is  a  small  but  scientific  work,  not  elementary. 
INIany  important  articles  on  Hebrew  grammar  have  appeared 
from  time  to  time  in  Professor  Harper's  Hehraica.  The 
Syntax  of  Aug.  Miiller's  useful  Schulgramvjatih  has  been 
recently  edited  in  English  by  Prof.  Robertson,  of  Glasgow, 
under  the  title  Ontlines  of  Hebrew  Syntax,  2nd  edit..  1887. 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH. 

1.  r  I  IHE  elaborate  care  taken  by  the  Jews  for 
-L  the  preservation  of  the  true  text  of  their 
sacred  books  has  ah^eady  been  noticed.  But  such  efforts 
cannot  be  traced  back  further  than  several  centuries 
posterior  to  the  Christian  era.  Although  Philo  as- 
serts that  ''the  Jews  never  altered  a  word  of  what 
was  written  by  Moses,"  and  Josephus  maintains  that 
nothing  was  added  to  the  text  of  Scripture  or  taken 
therefrom,  such  statements  cannot  be  regarded  as 
absolutely  true,  because  it  is  certain  that  additions 
and  glosses  were  from  time  to  time  added  to  the 
various  books.  Moreover  the  assertions  of  Philo  and 
Josephus  are  opposed  to  the  facts  disclosed  by  an 
examination  of  the  LXX.  and  of  the  other  Versions. 
There  is,  however,  no  ground  for  accusing  the  Jews 
of  wilfully  corrupting  the  sacred  text,  an  accusation 
constantly  preferred  against  them  by  the  Church 
Fathers,  as  well  as  by  later  writers.  The  care  taken 
by  the  Jews  in  post-Christian  days  to  preserve  intact 
the  books  committed  to  them,  led  to  the  execution 
of  the  work  generally  designated  under  the  name 
of  the  Massorah. 

2.  The   expression    rriiDD  (or   less   correctly    ^"p^f 


32  THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH 

from  IpD),  Bibl.  Hebrew  ri"iDD^  Massorah,  denotes 
"  tradition"  and  specially  the  tradition  connected 
with  the  correct  reading  of  the  sacred  text.  It  is 
incorrect  to  regard  it  as  a  deriv.  of  "^P^t,  meaning 
hondj  vinculum.  Under  the  name  is  often  included 
(1)  the  vowel  points  and  accents,  and  (2)  more  cor- 
rectly the  critical  notes  affixed  to  the  Hebrew  MSS. 
The  latter  recount  the  number  of  times  certain  rare 
words  or  combinations  of  words  occur,  and  call 
attention  to  divers  peculiarities.  The  short  Massorah 
is  often  divided  into  various  heads :  the  short  notes 
written  on  the  margin  of  MSS.,  or  of  the  large  Rab- 
binic Bibles,  are  known  as  the  Massora  inarginalis, 
which  is  an  abridgment  of  the  Massora  magna^ 
which  latter  was  written  above  or  below  the  text, 
and  often  in  MSS.  in  all  sorts  of  grotesque  forms. 
The  Massora  parva  is  written  on  the  sides  of  the 
margins  and  between  the  columns,  and  contains 
divers  notes  on  words  and  sentences  which  occur 
only  once,  or  on  various  peculiarities  in  vowel  points 
or  consonants,  which  are  noted  by  mnemonical  signs. 
Larger  notes  are  sometimes  found  at  the  end  of  the 
MS.,  and  thus  designated  the  Massora  finalis.  These 
Massoretic  notes  are  by  no  means  uniform,  and  are 
not  unfrequently  opposed  to  one  another.  Ginsburg's 
notes  give  abundant  instances  of  differences  between 
the  Massorah  as  quoted  by  Levita,  and  as  found 
elsewhere. 

3.  The  town  of  Tiberias  on  the  Lake  of  Capernaum 
was  the  chief  seat  of  Jewish  learning,  where  Mas- 
soretic studies  were  pursued.  After  the  return  from 
Exile   it   is   likely  that   there  were   scribes   devoted 


THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH  33 

to  the  work  of  preserving  and  copying  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  Such  duties  probably  formed  part  of 
the  work  of  "  the  scribes "  so  often  alluded  to  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  overthrow  of  the  Jewish 
state  by  the  Romans  put  an  end  to  all  such  arrange- 
ments, and  it  is  impossible  to  tell  on  what  authority 
the  statements  rest  which  are  made  in  the  Talmud 
as  to  the  work  of  the  earlier  scribes.  K.  Judah  the 
Holy  (a.d.  200)  committed  to  writing  the  Mishna, 
in  order  to  preserve  from  utter  destruction  that 
great  body  of  oral  law,  which  had  hitherto  been 
handed  down  for  centuries  solely  by  word  of  mouth. 
In  the  fourth  century  it  was  further  found  necessary 
to  commit  to  writing  the  Gemara,  or  commentary 
on  the  Mishna,  parts  of  w^hich  are  as  old,  and  even 
occasionally  older  than  the  Mishna  itself.  It  was 
several  centuries  after  the  Christian  era  ere  the 
Jewish  scholars  became  reconciled  to  the  practice  of 
committing  anything  to  writing  except  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  Their  laws,  traditions,  and  expositions 
were  all  handed  down  orally.  Hence  it  is  not 
surprising  that  no  written  records  exist  detailing  the 
work  of  the  Massoretic  scholars.  See  Bloch,  Studien 
zur  Gesch.  der  heb.  Lit.^  p.  120  ff.,  and  mj  Koheleth^ 
Excursus  iii.,  p.  484.     See  Apjjendix, 

4.  Ben  Asher,  who  lived  in  the  tenth  century,  and 
whose  family  lived  at  Tiberias  in  the  eighth  century,  is 
said  to  have  left  behind  him  a  Hebrew  codex,  affirmed 
to  have  been  the  main  source  from  whence  the  present 
Massoretic  text  is  derived.  Ben  Naphtali  somewhat 
earlier  wrote  also  a  model  codex  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
A  few  scanty  remains  exist  of  the  differences  between 

3 


34  THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH. 

the  readings  of  Ben  Asher  and  Ben  Naphtali.  Some 
of  these  affect  the  consonants  of  the  text,  such  as 
Jer.  xi.  7,  where  Ben  Naphtali  reads  'li;  for  ^n  ; 
Jer.  xxix.  22,  where  he  reads  vnjOl  for  inXlDI 
Most  of  them,  however,  only  affect  the  punctuation. 

See  Strack's  Prolegometia.  Baer  and  Strack,  JHkduke 
hattcamim,  1879.  Berliner,  Targ.  OnJi'elos,  1884 ;  ii.  139* 
On  the  Babylonian  punctuation,  in  addition  to  works  already 
mentioned  in  ch.  iv.  6,  see  Pinsker,  E'mfilhrung  in  d.  Balyl. 
Heh.  Puyictationsystem,  1863  ;  Graetz,  Monatschrift,  1881. 

The  history  of  the  Massorah  in  general,  in  addition  to  the 
works  mentioned  in  ch.  iii.  6,  8  ;  iv.  5,  is  treated  by  Geiger  in 
liis  Jiidische  Zeitsclirift,  iii.,  78  pp.,  and  in  his  Urschrift  und 
Uehersetznngen  der  B'lhel^  1857 ;  by  Strack  in  the  Prot. 
Realencycl. ,  2nd  edition,  ix.,  388  fF.  See  also  the  Sefn'  Tnra 
printed  in  Kirchheim's  VII  Lihri  Talm.  j^arvl  Ilierosol,,  1851 ; 
MUller,  Mascchet  Soferim,  1878.  Frensdorf,  Das  Buck  Oclila 
lu'ochlu,  1864  ;  his  Massora  Magna,  1876,  is  unfortunately 
l^nfinished.  Ginsburg's  great  folio  work.  The  Massorah — com- 
inledfrom  MSS.  alphabetically  and  lexically  arranged,  is  not 
yet  completed,  although  vol.  i.  appeared  in  1880,  vol.  ii.  com- 
pleting the  Massorah  in  1883,  and  a  supplementary  vol.  to  vol. 
iii.  in  1885.  Vol.  iii.  itself  has  not  yet  appeared,  but  is  partly  in 
the  press,  and  likely  to  appear  in  a  year  or  so.  S.  Baer  is  publish- 
ing an  amended  Massoretic  text  in  the  Rabbinical  Bible,  Milira 
Gadhol,  Wilna.  See  also  two  very  able  articles  on  "  The  Rise 
and  Development  of  the  Massorah"  by  Rev.  I.  Harris,  M.A.,  in 
the  Jewish  Quarterly  BeviewJ&n.  and  April, 1889.  See  Appendix. 

5.  The  object  of  the  Massoretic  scholars  was,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  preserve  the  text  as  they  received 
it.  They  did  not  venture  to  correct  the  text,  even 
in  places  where  its  blunders  were  most  distinctly 
ascertained.  But  although  they  thus  preserved  in 
many  places  inferior  readings  in  the  text,  noting  it 


THE  JEWISH  MASSORAII.  35 


as  ^TlD,  written  (Kethibh),  they  introduced  into  the 
margin  what  they  would  have  substituted  in  their 
place,  as  ^'\p,  read  {ICre  or  Q're,  see  Aj:)})).  In  all 
these  cases,  without  exception,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered the  word  that  stands  in  the  text  is  regarded 
as  left  absolutely  unpointed,  the  vowel  points  and 
accents  belonging  only  to  that  found  in  the  margin. 
It  should  be  noted  that  several  of  these  K're  readings 
are  often  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  and  that  therefore 
a  portion  at  least  of  those  notes  belong  to  a  period 
prior  to  the  invention  of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points. 

Of  the  K're  notes  as  found  in  the  present  Hebrew 
Bible  there  are  various  kinds.  Sometimes  (1)  vowcvS 
and  accents  are  written  without  any  consonants,  the 
consonants  to  which  they  belong  being  given  in  the 
margin.  See  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  xvi.  23 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  38. 
(2)  Consonants  stand  in  the  text  without  vowels,  the 
word  so  marked  being  in  the  margin  directed  to  be 
passed  over  entirely.  See  Jer.  li.  3;  Ezek.  xlviii.  16; 
JRuth  iii.  12.  (3)  Sometimes  the  K're  directs  what 
is  v.ritten  in  the  text  as  one  word  to  be  divided  into 
tvv'o,  e.g.  Ps.  X.  10,  D^^^rs'pn  is  to  be  read  D''«D  ^n. 
(1)  In  other  cases  two  words  are  directed  to  be  read 
as  one,  e.g.  D'^JW  '•D  in  Lam.  iv.  3  as  C^P.^j?.  (5)  There 
are  words  whose  last  letter  belongs  to  the  following 
word,  e.g.  2  Sam.  v.  2,  in  t«^viD  nn\"l ;  2  Sam.  xxi. 
12,  where  DTlt^^S  nOK^  must  be  read,  instead  of 
DTl^^Sn  DtJ*.  (6)  Euphemistic  expressions  were 
directed  to  be  substituted  in  reading  for  the  coarser 
expressions  which  occur  in  the  original. 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  there  are  words 
to  which  a  ICre  perpetuum  is  always  to  be  supplied. 


36  THE  JEWISH  MASSORAE. 

E.g.  i<in,  fern.,  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  intended  always 
to  be  read  ^^T},  The  letters  may  also  be  read  N-in,  but 
in  no  case  is  it  to  be  pronounced  as  printed.  Similarly, 
n^n*  was  never  intended  to  be  pronounced  Jehovah^ 
which  is  not  Hebrew.  The  name  is  written  indeed 
^^^l,  but  the  vowels  are  those  of  V"^^:>  Lord,  which 
is  directed  to  be  read  instead.  When  the  combina- 
tion "  the  Lord  Jehovah  "  occurs,  in  which  the  word 
'^f^^.  precedes  mns  the  vowels  of  ^"J"!^.^,  God,  are  then 
substituted,  and  nirT"  is  vocalised  ^)^\,  as  the  name 
C'n'bK  is  to  be  read  in  its  place.  This  unwillingness 
to  pronounce  the  sacred  name,  the  true  vocalisation  of 
which  is  probably  '^.)l',-,  or  ^)jyi,  is  at  least  as  old  as 
the  LXX.  version,  in  which  Kvpto?  is  always  sub- 
stituted for  it  (see  chap,  -viii.,  8),  and  the  same  usage 
has  been  retained  in  the  English  versions,  where  Lord 
or  God,  as  the  case  may  be,  printed  in  small  capitals 
stands  for  Jahaveh  or  Jahveh.  Instances  of  the  former 
occur  everywhere  in  the  English  versions ;  more  rarely 
the  latter,  see  Isa.  Ixi.  11.  On  the  name  see  Driver, 
"  Recent  Theories  on  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the 
Tetragrammaton,"  in  Skudia  Biblica,  Oxford,  1885. 

6.  The  division  of  the  Law  into  various  sections 
known  as  Parashoth  (niEJ^nS),  diviaions  (or  ni*^"}^)^  to 
which  other  sections  from  the  Prophets  termed  Haph- 
taroth  (nfltpsn)  corresponded,  was  the  work  of  the 
same  scholars,  or  at  least  was  finally  lixed  by  them. 
These  larger  sections  are  denoted  by  222,  or  by  DDD, 
indicating  that  under  such  divisions  several  minor 
sections  are  included,  which  are  designated  by  single 
letters.  A  list  of  the  Haphtaroth  of  the  Prophets 
corresponding  to  the  Parashoth  of  the  Law,  is  generally 


THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH.  37 

found  at  the  close  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  sections 
of  the  Law  or  Pentateuch  were  originally  one  hundred 
and  fifty- four,  designed  for  a  three  years'  course  of 
reading.  In  the  present  Hebrew  Bibles  they  are  fifty- 
four  in  number,  arranged  for  a  yearly  cycle.  These 
larger  sections  are  subdivided  into  smaller,  designated 
mmriD,  ^^ open"  and  marked  with  single  S,  or  with  a 
single  D  (ni^OIDD,  ^^ closed''),  the  differences  between 
the  two  having  reference  mainly,  though  perhaps  not 
exclusively,  to  the  calligraphy  of  the  text,  are  by 
no  means  strictly  observed  in  the  printed  Hebrew 
Bibles.  The  open  sections  are  chief  divisions,  the 
closed  generally  subdivisions.  But  there  were  other 
differences  also  indicated  by  such  sections.  The  verse 
division  was  a  later  introduction  of  the  same  scholars. 
7.  A  considerable  number  of  other  points  connected 
with  the  Massorah  must  be  here  passed  over  in 
silence.  The  labour  undergone  in  the  numbering  of 
the  letters  and  the  notation  of  the  middle  letters 
and  middle  words  in  each  book  subserved  no  useful 
purpose.  It  did  not  preserve  the  text  from  cor- 
ruption. The  Massoretic  lists  of  parallel  passages 
and  peculiarities  are,  on  the  other  hand,  important. 
The  use  of  literce  miajusculce  (as  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  31), 
minusculce  {e.g.  Gen.  ii.  4),  susjmiscs  (Judg.  xviii.  30), 
inversce  (Num.  x.  35,  36),  with  many  other  pecu- 
liarities of  a  similar  nature,  were  designed  for  critical 
purposes  of  various  kinds,  which  in  some  cases  have 
been  discovered,  while  in  other  cases  their  real  signifi- 
cance has  been  hopelessly  lost.  The  puerilities  about 
these  matters  mentioned  by  Buxtorf  in  his  Tiberias y 
are  in  many  cases  mere  "conceits"  of  a  later  age. 


38  THE  JEWISH  MASSORAH. 

The  lyuncta  extraordinaria,  which  are  of  far  older  date 
than  the  Massoretic  period,  have  been  in  some  cases 
explained  as  simple  signs  of  correction  on  the  part  of 
the  scribes.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of 
this  view.  For  similar  points  oqpur  in  Samaritan 
MSS.  with  that  signification,  and  some  of  the  words 
so  pointed  in  Hebrew  MSS.  are  omitted  in  the  ancient 
versions.  But  although  some  such  use  was  subserved 
by  those  dots,  the  explanation  cannot  yet  be  abso- 
lutely accepted.  For  it  must  be  observed  that  MSS. 
are  by  no  means  uniform  in  that  particular,  the 
puncta  extraordinaria  occurring  more  frequently  in 
some  MSS.  than  in  others.  Strack's  ProUg.  Grit,  in 
Vet.  Test.  Heh.,  1873,  which  gives  much  information 
on  such  points,  criight  to  be  in  the  hands  of  every 
Biblical  student. 

8.  The  order  of  the  various  Books  seems  to  have 
been  finally  settled  by  the  Massoretes.  The  Hebrew 
Bible  is  divided  into  three  parts:  (1)  The  Tor  ah, 
"  Law "  or  Pentateuch.  (2)  The  Prophets,  divided 
into  two,  (a)  the  former,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings ;  (6)  the  later,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  with 
the  twelve  Minor  Prophets.  (3)  The  Kethuhim,  or 
the  "  Writings,"  generally  termed  the  Hagiographa, 
viz.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  the  five  Megilloth  or 
Tiolls  {i.e.  Canticles,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Esther),  Daniel,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles. 
The  order  of  the  Books  in  the  English  Bible  is  that 
of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  with  the  Apocryj)hal  Books 
excluded.  The  Massorah  reckons  the  Books  as 
twenty-four,  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and 
Chronicles  being  counted  as  single  books ;  the  twelve 


THE   JEWISH  MASSORAH.  39 

Minor  Prophets  are  reckoned  as  one  book,  and 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  also  regarded  as  forming 
together  one  book.  The  English  Bible  regards  the 
books  as  thirty-nine.  Josephus  and  the  Alexandrine 
writers  reckon  only  twenty-two,  Ruth  with  Judges 
being  counted  as  one,  and  Lamentations  being  in- 
cluded in  Jeremiah.  The  arrangement  in  the  Talmud 
{Baba  Batlira,  14&)  is: — Law;  Prophets^  i.e.  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah, 
and  the  Twelve ;  Writings,  i.e.  Kuth,  Psalms,  Job, 
Proverbs,  Koheleth,  Canticles,  Lamentations,  Daniel, 
Esther,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Chronicles.  But  the  latter 
order  is  of  very  doubtful  authority.  See  Bloch, 
Studien]  Wright,  Koheleth,  Excurs.  i.  The  size  or 
the  respective  books,  as  ascertained  by  the  pages 
actually  occupied  by  each,  was  evidently  the  principle 
which  determined  the  order  in  which  the  books  of  the 
Vrophets  were  placed  according  to  this  arrangement. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

THE     TAR  GUMS. 

1.  ri  ^HE  intercourse — sometimes  of  a  friendly,  a.nd 
-L  more  often  of  a  hostile  character — which 
from  the  earliest  times  took  place  between  Israel  and 
their  Aramaic-speaking  neighbours,  caused  Aramaic 
to  be  generally  understood,  not  only  by  members  of 
the  tribes  belonging  to  the  northern  kingdom,  but 
also  by  the  higher  classes  belonging  to  the  southern 
kingdom  (Isa.  xxxvi.  11,  etc.).  The  Western  Aramaic 
gradually  became  more  general  among  the  Israelites 
after  the  Exile,  although  the  Israelites  did  not  learn, 
as  is  often  supposed  that  language  in  Babylon. 
Western  Aramaic  was,  indeed,  incorrectly  termed 
"  Chaldee,"  through  a  misconception  of  Dan.  i.  4 
with  ii.  4.  Jerome  popularised  the  mistake,  which 
he  no  doubt  imbibed  from  his  Jewish  teachers ;  and 
accordingly  many,  from  his  days  onward,  have  sup- 
posed that  the  astrologers  (or  Chaldasans)  at  the  court 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  addressed  that  king  in  Aramaic, 
w^hich  was  sometimes  regarded  as  having  been  the 
language  of  Babylonia.  See  our  remarks  on  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  p.   193. 

2.  After  the  Exile  Aramaic  became  the  language 
of  trade  and  commerce  in  Palestine,  and  a  consider- 


THE  TARGUMS.  41 

able  number  of  the  Jews  after  a  time  were  more 
familiar  with  it  than  with  the  sacred  tongue.  Hence 
the  practice  arose  of  accompanying  the  reading  of 
the  Scriptures  in  the  synagogues  by  an  interpreta- 
tion in  the  popular  Aramaic.  Neh.  viii.  8  is  often 
incorrectly  adduced  in  proof  of  this  practice.  For 
the  Jewish  theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages  were 
anxious  to  cite  Scripture  authority  for  all  their 
arrangements  and  institutions,  even  for  those  which 
came  into  existence  subsequent  to  the  Persian  period, 
just  as  Christian  divines  have  similarly  attempted  to 
establish  dogmas  and  practices  of  latter  development 
from  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  which,  rightly 
understood,  have  no  such  meaning.  Luke  iv.  17ff. 
is  often  adduced  to  prove  that  the  practice  of  inter- 
preting the  Scriptures  in  Aramaic  was  at  least  not 
universal  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  That  practice 
may,  however,  then  have  been  in  use  in  parts  of  the 
country,  and  it  was  firmly  established  as  a  general 
custom  before  the  great  insurrection  in  the  days  of 
Hadrian.  The  Aramaic  paraphrase  sometimes  adhered 
closely  to  the  original  text,  but  at  other  times  was 
embellished  with  additions  of  various  kinds.  The 
reader  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  reading  was 
forbidden  to  add  anything  to  the  sacred  text,  or  to 
repeat  any  text  from  memory.  He  was  directed  when 
reading  strictly  to  keep  his  eyes  on  the  words.  The 
Meturgeman,  or  Translator,  was,  on  the  other  hand, 
forbidden  to  make  any  use  whatever  of  manuscript 
but  was  wholly  to  depend  on  memory.  Comp.  J.  H. 
Biesenthal,  Das  Trostschreihen  an  die  Hehrder,  Einl., 
cap.  v.,  p.  50 ff. 


42  THE  TARGUMS. 

3.  All  "interpretations" — and  the  word  Targum 
(D'lil")jri)  properly  signifies  such — have  a  tendency, 
whether  more  or  less  literal,  in  the  process  of  time 
to  become  uniform.  The  interpreters  among  the 
Jews  became  in  time  a  sort  of  guild.  While,  there- 
fore, Bbhl  has  gone  too  far  in  maintaining  that 
there  was  in  existencQ  in  our  Lord's  time  an  Aramaic 
translation  or  paraphrase  of  the  Scriptures,  which  was 
cited  by  New  Testament  writers,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  large  portions  of  the  Scripture  in  Aramaic  were 
early  committed  to  wi'iting.  The  Talmud  (Shabbath, 
115«,  towards  the  end)  mentions  a  written  Targum 
on  the  Book  of  Job  towards  the  close  of  the  first 
century,  in  the  days  of  Gamaliel.  The  antipathy 
of  that  patriarch  to  such  a  work  was  so  great,  that 
he  ordered  it  to  be  buried  under  the  foundations  of 
a  wall ;  and,  according  to  the  Jer.  Talmud  {Shabbath, 
xvi.  15c),  the  order  was  forthwith  executed.  But  if 
a  written  Targum  on  Job  was  extant  so  early,  it  is 
only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  other  Targums  were 
also  in  existence. 

4.  The  theology  set  forth  in  the  Targums  proves, 
as  Strack  observes,  their  great  antiquity.  None, 
however,  of  the  Targums  now  known  are  of  higher 
antiquity  than  the  third  or  fourth  centuries  after 
Christ.  But  they  are  based  to  a  large  extent  upon 
similar  works  of  a  much  higher  antiquity. 

5.  The  extant  Targums  are:  (1)  The  Targum  of 
Onhelos  (DlSp^lX),  which  is  the  most  literal,  and 
comprehends  the  entire  Pentateuch.  It  is  uncertain 
who  this  Onkelos  was,  or  at  what  time  he  lived. 
The  Onkelos  spoken  of  in   the  Talmud  as   contem- 


THE  TARGUMS.  43 

porary  with  Gamaliel,  and  whose  translations  arc 
there  mentioned,  can  be  identified  with  Aqiiila  (D^^py), 
the  Greek  translator  (see  p.  60).  Geiger  is  probably- 
correct  in  maintaining  that  the  Targum  which 
adhered  most  literally  to  the  Hebrew  text  was 
called  that  of  Onkelos,  not  because  it  was  edited  by 
him,  but  as  indicating  that  it  was  executed  with 
something  like  the  same  literality  for  which  Aquila's 
Greek  version  was  remarkable.  The  name  describes 
the  nature  of  the  work,  and  not  the  author.  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
the  work  of  a  single  author  or  editor,  but  the  pro- 
duction of  a  school.  In  its  present  shape  it  probably 
originated  in  Babylon,  and  it  has  often  been  questioned 
whether  that  Targum  is  as  early  as  the  older  portions 
of  the  two  Targums  next  to  be  mentioned. 

(2)  The  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  I.,  embraces  the 
Pentateuch,  and  is  commonly  known  as  the  Targum 
of  Pseudo-Jonathan,  owing  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
incorrectly  ascribed  to  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the  pupil 
of  Hillel,  a  mistake  which  probably  arose  from  an 
incorrect  explanation  of  the  abbreviation  '  "n,  which 
indicates  ^O^E^n^  Diain.  In  its  present  form  it  is 
probably  not  older  than  the  seventh  century. 

(3)  The  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  II.,  also  termed  the 
Fragmenta.ry  Targu7)i,  embraces  only  portions  of  the 
Pentateuch.  It  is  older  than  the  former,  and  pro- 
bably a  production  of  the  Palestinian  school.  It 
contains  more  of  an  Haggadic,  i.e.  homiletic  nature. 
This  Targum  is  often  cited  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
and  in  the  Midrash  Kabba. 

(4)  The  Targum  of  Jonathan  embraces  the  Prophets. 


44  THE  TARGUMS. 

This  paraphrase  is  generally  ascribed  to  Jonathan 
ben  Uzziel,  who,  according  to  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
{Megillah^  3a),  composed  a  Targum  on  the  Prophets. 
Passages,  however,  of  this  Targum  are  ascribed  in 
the  Talmud  to  a  later  scholar,  E.  Joseph  bar  Chiyyah 
(died  333),  who  may  have  revised  and  re-edited  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel.  The  name  Jonathan 
was  a  common  one.  Geiger  has  conjectured  that 
Jonathan  is  a  Hebraised  form  of  Theodotion  (see 
chap,  viii.),  both  names  being  of  the  same  significa- 
tion. In  this  case  the  name  indicates  the  manner  in 
which  the  Targum  was  composed.  It  is  likely  that 
this  Targum  also  was  the  product  of  a  school  of 
interpreters,  and  nob  the  work  of  any  single  author. 

(5)  The  Targums  on  the  Hagiographa  (chap,  v.,  8) 
were  composed  by  different  authors,  and  are  more 
modern.  The  authors  of  those  paraphrases  probably 
worked  also  on  the  lines  of  former  translators.  No 
Targum  is  extant  on  the  Books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
and  Daniel,  while  there  are  two  Targums  on  the 
Book  of  Esther.  According  to  Noldeke,  the  Targum 
on  the  Proverbs  is  a  Jewish  working-up  of  the 
Syriac  (Peshitto)  translation.  The  same  might  also 
be  affirmed  of  the  Targum  on  the  Psalms,  which, 
from  its  allusions  in  the  rendering  of  Psalm  cviii.  11 
to  Rome  and  Constantinople  as  the  two  capitals  of 
the  world,  has  been  considered  to  have  been  composed 
prior  to  a.d.  476 ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
references  to  the  Hungarians  in  Psalm  Ixxxiii.  7  point 
to  the  ninth  century.  Such  phenomena  seem  to 
show  that  the  translation  of  the  Psalms  was  the 
work  of  very  different  periods. 


THE   TARGUMS.  45 

(6)  Besides  the  above,  a  few  fragments  are  extant 
of  other  Targums  on  the  Prophets,  which  need  here 
only  be  alluded  to. 

6.  See  Noldeke,  Die  alt-testamentliche  Literatur,  1868, 
and  his  articles  in  Merx'  Archiv  f.  wiss.  Erforschunf/  d.  A.  T. 
ii.,  and  in  the  Zeltschrift  d.  devtsch.  Morgcnl.  Ges.,  xxii. 
(1868),  p.  443  ff.  ;  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge,  1832. 
Geiger,  Urschrift,  1857  ;  Judische  Zeitschrift,  1871, 1874 ;  J^ach- 
(jclassene  Sclmft.  iv.  Berliner,  Tavgiim  Onhelos,  (2  vols.,  text 
and  notes),  1884 ;  also  his  Massorahzum  Targum  Onlidoa,  1877. 
Seligsohn,  De  duahus  Ilierosol.  Pent,  paraph.,  1859.  G,  B. 
Winer,"  De  Onkeloso  ejusq.  parapli.  Chald.,  1820,  and  his  De 
Jonathanis  in  Pent,  parapli.  Chald.,  1823,  H.  Petermann, 
De  dualus  Pent,  paraph.  Chald.,  1829.  S.  D.  Luzzatto, 
Philoxemis  sive  de  Onlielosi  chald.  Pent,  vers.,  1830.  R.  Anger, 
De  Onhelo  Chald.  quern  ferunt  Pent,  paraph,  et  quid  ei 
rationis  intercedat  cnni  ATcila  grceco  V.  T.  interprete,  1845, 
1846.  S.  Gronemann,  Die  Jonathanische  Pent.-Uehersetzung 
in  ihrem  Verhdltnisse  zur  Halacha,  1879.  Sal.  Singer, 
Onhelos  u.  das  Verhaltniss  seines  Targ.  zur  Halacha,  1881. 
W.  Bacher,  on  Targ.  on  Pent,  in  Zeitschrift  d.  D.  M.  G., 
xxviii.  (1874),  also  in  same,  vol.  xxix.  (1875);  on  the  Targ.  to 
Psalms  in  Graetz,  Monatschrift  1872,  and  on  that  on  Joh  in 
Graetz,  Monatschrift,  1871.  Reis  on  Targ.  to  Esther  in  same 
journal  for  1876  and  1881.  M.  Rosenberg  and  K.  Kohler, 
Das  Targum  zur  Chronik.,  Judische  Zeitschrift,  1870. 

7.  The  Targums  are  given  in  the  Rabb.  Bibles  and  with 
Latin  translations  in  the  Polyglotts  (chap.  ii.  3).  Many 
separate  editions  have  also  appeared.  Lagarde  issued  an 
unpointed  edit,  of  Pi'ophetcs  Chaldaice  (Josh. — 2  Kings  with 
Isaiah — Mai.),  \%72,io\\o\YQdihjHagiogra2}ha  Chaldaice,  1873. 
For  Berliner's  Onhelos,  see  former  paragraph.  The  Targ.  on 
Chronicles  was  first  issued  by  Beck  in  Augsburg,  1680,  after- 
wards by  Wilkins,  Amsterdam,  1715.  The  Targ.  of  Onkelos 
has  been  often  reprinted  in  a  cheap  form  with  the  Heb.  text 
of  the  Pent.,  and  Rashi'scomm.,  6",^,  in  5  small  vols,  Schlesinger, 
Wien,  1878,     L.  Munk  has  issued  in  1876  the  Targum  scheni 


46  THE   TARGUMS. 

znm  B.  Esther  with  various  readings  and  notes.  Paulas 
Cassel  in  Das  Buch  Esther,  1878,  has  given  a  translation  of  the 
same.  (See  under  Esther.)  The  Targ.  on  Ruth  with  variants 
is  given  by  C.  H.  H.  Wright.  (See  under  Ruth.)  All  the 
Targums  on  the  Pent,  have  been  translated  into  English  by 
J.  "VV.  Etheridge  and  published  in  two  thick  vols,  in  1862  and 
1865.  C.  W.  H.  Pauli  has  also  published  an  English  transla- 
tion of  the  Targ,  on  Isaiah,  in  1871.  A  Latin  translation  of 
the  Jerus.  Targ.  was  published  by  P.  Tayler,  London,  1649, 
and  the  same  scholar  published  a  similar  translation  of  both 
Targums  to  the  Book  of  Esther  in  1655. 

8.  The  Aramaic  is  divided  into  two  branches  :  (1)  the  Western, 
which  comprehends  («)  the  Samaritan,  (J)  the  Biblical 
Aramaic,  and  (e)  the  Targumic,  the  two  latter  being  popularly 
though  erroneously  termed  Chaldee,  (^)  Nabatsean,  extant  in 
numerous  inscriptions  and  coins.  (2)  The  Eastern  Aramaic, 
comprehends  (a)  Syriac,  (h)  the  language  of  the  Babylonian 
Talmud,  and  {c)  Mandaic,  spoken  in  lower  Babylonia.  Other 
important  remains  of  Aramaic  are  mentioned  by  Kautzsch  in 
the  introduction  to  his  Graiumatik  des  bihlisch- AramdlscJien, 
1884.  The  Hebrew  student  can  easily  obtain  a  knowledge  of 
Biblical  Aramaic  through  th6  Chaldaismi  Bihliei  adumhratio 
prefixed  toBaer  and  Delitzsch's  ed.  of  Lihri  Danielis,  EzrcB  et 
Neh.,  1882.  S.  D.  Luzzatto,  Elements  of  Blhl.  Chaldee  and  of 
the  dial,  of  the  Talmud  was  published  in  Italian  in  18G5,  in 
German  1873,  and  in  English  by  J.  S.  Goldammer,  1877.  G.  B. 
Winer's  Gravim.  des  bibl.  und  targ.  Chald.,  2nd  edit.,  1842 
(edit,  by  Fischer,  1882),  is  the  basis  of  W^g^s  Chaldee  Manual, 
1832,  later  edit.  1S5S.  and  of  Longfield's  Grammar,  etc.,  1859. 
The  paradigms  in  the  latter  unfortunately  abound  in  typo- 
graphical blunders.  Turpie's  Chald.  Manual  appeared  in  1879. 
J.  H.  Petermann's,  Brcvis  ling,  chald.  gramm.  Utt.  chrestom. 
cum  glos.,  2nd  edit.,  1872,  is  useful.  The  best  grammar  for 
Bibl.  Chaldee  is  that  of  Kautzsch,  English  transl.  by  Stenhouse. 
Important  is  Ad.  Merx,  Bemerkungen  iiber  die  Vocalisation 
der  Targume  (Verhandl.  des  5  internat.  Orient.  Congr.,  ii.  1, 
pp.  142-188).  Merx  has  carried  out  the  principles  there  imli- 
cated  in  his  Chrest.  Targumica,  1888,  noticed  p.  28. 


'  THE   TARGUMS.  47 

The  Lexicons  are  :  J.  Buxtorf,  Lex.  CJiald.  Talm.  et  Rahh., 
foL,  1G39.  New  reprint  with  additions  by  B.  Fischer,  2  vols., 
1869  and  1874.  Eabb.  Dr.  J.  Levy,  Chalddisches  Worterhuch 
iiher  die  Targuviim,  etc.,  2  vols,,  1867,  1868,  reprint  in  one  vol., 
1881.  Most  important  is  J.  Levy,  Neuheh.  et  Chald.  Worter- 
huch  iiher  die  Tahitudivi  wid  Midraschim,  nehst  Beitra^en  von 
Prof.  Dr.  H.  L.  Fleischer,  vol.  i.,  1876  ;  vol.  ii.,  1879  ;  vol.  iii., 
1883  ;  voL  iv.,  1889.  Useful  chrestomathies  are  :  G.  B.  Winer 
Chald.  LeseliLcli  aus  den  Targg.,  2  Aufl.,  by  J.  FUrst,  1864 ;  J. 
Kaerle,  Chrest.  Targ.-Syr.,  1852  (299  pp.),  Merx,  see  p.  28. 
For  Talmudic  :  B.  Fischer,  Talmud.  Chrestomathie,  268  pp., 
H.  L,  Strack's  useful  editt.  of  Pirhe  Ahoth,  2te  Aufl.,  Berlin, 
H.  Reuther,  1888  ;  'Alwda  Zara,  1888  ;  Joma,  1888  ;  Shahhath, 
1890  ;  also  Geiger,  Lthr-  und  Lesehuch  zur  Sprache  der 
MisJinah,  1846  ;  Strack  and  Siegfried,  Lehrh.  der  Neuheh. 
Sj^rache  und  Litt.,  1884. 

Ed.  Bohl's  works  referred  to  on  p.  42  ai-e  :  Forschungeri  nach 
eiiier  Volhshihel  zur  Zeit  Jesu,  Wien,  1873  ;  and,  as  a  second 
vol.  of  that  work,  Die  Alt-testamentlichen  Oitate  ini  Newn 
Test.,  Wien,  1878. 

9.  The  Samaritan  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
carefully  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Samaritan 
codex  of  the  Pentateuch  noticed  before,  p.  19.  The 
Samaritan  codex  is  simply  a  Hebrew  codex  of  a 
different  recension  from  the  Massoretic,  and  written 
in  the  Samaritan  character,  which,  though  by  no 
means  so  important  as  formerly  imagined,  is  still  of 
considerable  value.  But  the  Samaritan  version  is  in 
reality  a  Samaritan  Targum  based  on  the  Samaritan 
codex,  and  possesses  peculiar  value.  The  Fathers  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries  speak  of  a  '^afxapeLTLKov, 
or  Greek  translation  of  this  version,  which  is  there- 
fore of  considerable  antiquity.  See  Field's  Hexapla,  i., 
p.  Ixxxiii. 


48  THE  TAEGUMS. 

The  best  helps  to  Samaritan  are  :  F.  Uhlemann,  InstUutiones 
ling.  SamantancB,  1837,  containing  an  extensive  chrestomathy. 
J.  H.  Petermann,  Brevis  ling.  Sam.  gramm.  litt.  direst,  cum 
gloss.,  1873.  The  literature  given  in  the  Porta  Ling  Orient., 
especially  as  re-editcd  by  Strack,  will  also  be  found  of 
considerable  utility. 

The  Sam.  version  is  to  be  found  in  the  Polyglotts,  see 
chap.  ii.  3.  More  modern  editions  are,  BrilU,  Gesch.  u.  Lit., 
1876;  Das  Samaritanisclie  Targ.  z.  Pent.,  with  various  readings 
and  app.,  1875,1879;  Varianten  zu  Genesis  des  Sam.  Targ., 
1876,  both  in  Hebrew  characters.  J.  W.  Nutt,  Fragments 
of  a  Sam.  Targum,  1874.  J.  H.  Petermann,  Pent.  Sam.  in 
Samaritan  characters  :  Fasc.  i.  Gen.,  1872  ;  ii.  Exod.,  1882 ; 
iii.  Lev.,ed.  Vollers,  1883  ;  iv.  Numl?.,  ex  recens.  Toilers,  1885. 
Important  are  :  H.  Petermann,  Versucli  einer  heh.  FormenleJire 
nacli  der  AussjjracJte  der  heutig.  Samaritaner  nebst  einer  dar- 
nach  gcMld.  Transscription  der  Genesis,  und  .  .  .  Lesarten 
der  Samaritaner,  1868  ;|M.  Heidenheim,  Die  Sam.  Pent.  Vers. 
Genesis  in  der  heh.  Quadratschrift,  mit  Einl.  u.  SclioUen, 
1884.  Kohn,  Samaritanlsche  Studieti,  1868.  Also  his  Zwr 
Spraclie,  Lit.  u.  Dogmatik,  1876  (reviewed  by  Noldeke,  Zeit- 
schrift.  d.  D.  M.  G.,  1876,  p.  343  ff);  also  in  Zeitschrift  der 
D.  M.  G..  1885.  Kuenen  has  published  Abu  Said's  Arabic 
translation,  Lih.  Gen.  sec.  Arah.^  Pent,  vers,,  1851  ;  Exod.  u. 
Lev.,  1854. 


CHAPTER  YII. 

THE  8TRIAC   VERSIONS    OF  THE   OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

1.  rriHE  oldest  Syriac  version  is  that  known  as 
-■-■  the  Peshitto,  NDtD^EJ^S,  ]A,4  i>w<^  i.e.  the 
simple,  or  (as  explained  by  Nestle  and  Strack)  generally 
used  version.  The  term  occurs  in  Syriac  Massoretic 
MSS.  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  (NoldeJce),  and 
was  so  named  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Hexaplar 
version.  The  Peshitto  is  of  Judseo-Christian  origin, 
and  is  as  old  as  '  the  second  or  third  centuries. 
The  translation  was  the  work  of  several  scholars, 
and  the  portions  are  of  very  different  merit.  The 
Pentateuch  is  the  best-translated  portion.  The  trans- 
lators made  considerable  use  of  the  LXX. ;  but  it  is 
not  improbable  that  their  translation  was  corrected 
here  and  there  in  later  times,  and  so  approximates 
more,  nearly  to  the  LXX.  than  it  did  originally. 
Strack  observes  that  the  translation  of  the  Chronicles 
is  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  other  books. 
Noldeke  considers  that  the  cause  of  this  is  that  the 
Nestorians  and  some  of  the  Monophysites  did  not 
include  in  their  canon  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  Esther.  It  is  to  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  Aphraates,   who  flourished  in  the  second 

4 


50  THE  SYRIAC    VEBSIONS 

quarter  of  the  fourth  century,  cites  all  those  books 
as  canonical.  A  list  of  the  numerous  Scripture 
quotations  in  Aphraates  is  given  in  W.  Wright's 
edition  of  the  Homilies  of  A'phraates  in  Syriac,  vol. 
i.,  1869.  As  the  English  translation  of  this  work, 
promised  by  Professor  Wright  as  vol.  ii.,  has  unfor- 
tunately never  appeared,  it  may  be  well  to  observe 
that  a  German  translation  of  Aphraates  by  George 
Bert  has  been  published  in  von  Gebhardt  and 
Harnack's  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  zur  Gesch.  d.  Alt. 
Christl.  Lit.,  Band  iii.,  Heft  3,  4,  1888,  which  contains 
also  a  list  of  the  Biblical  quotations.  The  Apocryphal 
books  form  no  part  of  the  Peshitto  proper,  but  are 
a  later  addition  thereto,  although  those  books  are 
contained  in  old  MSS. 

2.  The  Peshitto  version  is  given  in  full  in  both  the  Paris 
and  London  Polyglotts,  accompanied  by  a  Latin  version. 
S.  Lee  published  in  1824  the  whole  version  of  both  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  which  is  the  edition  sold  by  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society.  That  edition  is  for  the  most  part  not 
vocalized  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  American  missionaries 
have  published  a  fully  pointed  edition  at  Urmia,  1852.  Single 
portions  have  been  often  edited,  such  as  the  Pent,  by  G.  G. 
Kirsch,  1787,  the  Psalms  by  Erpenius  in  1625  ;  and  with  Latin 
notes  (phil.  et  crit,,)  by  Dathe,  1768 ;  there  is  also  a  pointed 
edition  of  the  same  by  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society; 
and  by  Nestle  in  Psalt.  Tetraglott.,  Grcdc.^  Syr.^  Clialcl..  Lat., 
1879 ;  where  the  texts  are  however  unpointed.  Ceriani,  Transl. 
Syra  Pcacitto  V.  T.  ex  cod.  Amhro.s.,  3  parts,  fob,  1876-79; 
de  Lagarde,  LiU.  V.  T.  Apoc.  Syr.,  1861.  See  L.  Hirzel, 
De  Pent.  Vers.  Syr.  indole,  1825.  Credner,  De  Pro2)li.  Min. 
vers.  Syr.  ,  .  .  indole,  1827.  N.  Wiseman,  Hone  Syr.,  Rom., 
1828.  Perles,  Meletemat.  PescTi.,  1859.  Janichs,  Animadv. 
erit.  in  vers.  siyr.  Koli.  et  Bvtii,  1871.     Prager,  Be  V.  T.  vers. 


OF  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  51 

syr.  quoBst.  crit.,  Pars  I.,  1875.  Noldeke,  Alt-test.  Lit.,  1868. 
S.  Frankel,  Die  Syr.  Uehersetzung  xn  den  lih.  der  Chron.  in 
Jahrhh.  f.  Prot.  Tlieol.,  1879.  Baethgen,  Untersnchvngeti 
ither  die  Pmlmen^  Jahrhh.  f.  Prot.  Theol.,  1882.  See  under 
head  of  Psalms. 

2.  The  Hexaplar  Syriac  is  a  translation  of  the  LXX. 
version,  and  of  great  importance  in  all  questions 
bearing  on  that  version.  Its  author  was  Paul,  Bishop 
of  Telia,  A.D.  616-618.  Norberg  published  in  1787 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  after  this  version,  and  H. 
Middeldorpf  has  published  Cod.  Syr.  Hexapl.  lih.  iv. 
Reg.,  e  cod.  Paris,  alsoJer.,  xii.  Proph.  Min.,  Prov.,  Job, 
Cant.,  Threni,  Eccl.,  e  cod.  Mediol.  ed.  et  comm.  illustr., 
1835.  T.  Skat  Rordam  published  Lihri  Judicum  et 
Ruth  sec.  vers.  Syr.-HexapL,  1861. 

On  the  most  ancient  Syriac  MSS.  see  Ceriani,  Memoric 
del  R.  Inst.  Lomh.  di  Sclenze  e  Lett.,  Ser.  iii.,  vol.  xi.,  2. 
W.  Wright's  Catalogue  of  Syriac  MSS.  in  British  Museum^ 
1870.  The  most  complete  account  of  Syriac  literature  is 
W.  Wright's  article  in  the  Encycl.  Britannica,  vol.  xxii.  See 
the  sketch  in  Eb.  Nestle's  Syrische  Grammatik  mit  Litt. 
Chrest.  u.  Gloss.,  2nd  ed.,  1888.  An  English  translation  has 
been  issued  by  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  1889.  Among  the  principal 
modern  Syriac  grammars  are  that  of  Uhlemann,  1829,  2nd  ed., 
1857  ;  Engl,  trans,  by  Hutchinson,  New  York  and  Edinb.,  1854. 
A.  T.  Hofemann,  Gram.  Syr.,  Libb.  iii.,  1827.  Ad.  Merx, 
Gramm.  Syr.,  Pars  i.,  1867  ;  Pars  ii.,  1870,  not  yet  completed. 
Th.  Noldeke,  Kurzgefass.  Syr.  Grammatih,  1880.  In  English  : 
Phillips,  Elements  of  Syr.  Gramm.,  3rd  ed.,  1866.  B.  H. 
Cowper,  Syriac  Gramm.,  1858.  In  French  :  R.  Duval,  Traite 
de  Grammaire  Syriaque,  Paris,  1881.  On  the  Syriac  Massora, 
see  Wiseman,  HorcB  Syr.,  1828  ;  M.  I'abb^  Martin,  Iradition 
Karhajjhienne,  ou  la  Massore  chez  les  Syriens,  Paris,  1870  ; 
Hist,  de  la  Punct.,  ou  la  JIassore  chez  les  Syriens  1875.  The 
Lexicons  are :  Castell,  Lex.  Syr.  cur,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  1788. 


52  THE  SYRIAC   VERSIONS. 

The  lexicon  attached  to  Kirsch's  Chrest  Syr.  munlex.,  ed. 
by  G.  H.  Bernstein,  1832,  1836,  is  most  useful  to  supplement 
the  former.  K.  Payne  Smith,  Thesaurus  Syriacus,  is  not  yet 
quite  completed  (vol.  i.,  1879,  vol.  2,  fasc.  vi.,  1883,  vii.,  1886, 
viii.,  1896  to  end  of  P].  ) 

The  other  Oriental  versions,  such  as  the  Arabic, 
Persian  and  Ethiopic,  are  of  very  secondary  import- 
ance, and  must  here  be  passed  over. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  GREEK  VERSIONS. 

1.  nnHE  Sejytuagint.  The  most  important  of  the 
ancient  versions  is  the  Alexandrian  Greek 
translation,  generally  designated  the  LXX.,  and  in 
former  times  sometimes  the  LXXII.  The  name  is 
popularly  explained  by  the  legend  in  the  apocryphal 
Letter  of  Aristeas  to  Philocrates,  namely,  that  at 
the  suggestion  of  Demetrius  Phalereus,  librarian  at 
Alexandria,  king  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (b.c.  286- 
246)  requested  Eleazar,  the  high  priest  at  Jerusalem, 
to  procure  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Jewish  Law 
for  the  Boyal  Library  at  Alexandria.  Aristeas  gives 
an  interesting  description  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
and  its  cultus.  In  accordance  with  the  request, 
Eleazar  sent  down  to  Egypt  six  men  selected  out 
of  each  tribe,  seventy-two  in  all,  who,  in  the  Isle  of 
Pharos,  translated  the  Pentateuch  from  a  MS.  written 
in  golden  letters  upon  parchment.  The  translation 
was  performed  in  seventy-two  days,  was  highly 
praised  by  the  Alexandrine  Jews,  and  the  translators 
returned  laden  with  gifts  to  their  own  land.  The 
legend  afterwards  received  amplifications,  viz.  that 
the  translators  were  shut  up  in  separate  cells,  that 
they   translated    the    whole    Bible,    and   that    they 


54  THE   GREEK    VERSIOJSS. 

produced  each  a  translation,  which  on  examination 
proved  to  be  word  for  word  identical. 

The  Greek  text  of  Aristeas'  Letter  is  given  in  Havercamp's 
edit,  of  Josephus,  1726,  but  the  text  there  and  elsewhere  given 
is  corrupt.  It  has  been  critically  edited  by  M.  Schmidt,  in 
Merx'  Archiv,  Band  i.,  pp.  241-312  (1869).  The  Letter  was 
known  to  Josephus,  who  has  misunderstood  and  misrepresented 
some  of  its  statements.  The  Greek  is  in  many  places  difficult. 
A  translation  into  German  is  to  be  found  in  O.  Waldeck, 
Volksausyabe  dcs  jild.-hellenistichen  Schriftthums  der  drei 
vorchristl.  Jahrh.,  1885.  See  on  Aristeas,  Noldeke,  Alt.  Test. 
Litteratur,  p.  109  ff.,  and  Papageorgios,  Ueher  den  Aristeas- 
hrief,  1880,     Schiirer,  Gesch.  d,.jud.  Volkes,  see  Aj)jf. 

Aristobulus,  a  Jewish  philosopher  (who  wrote  an 
'E^y]yr](TL<i  rrj<i  Mojo-€(os  ypa<firjs,  quoted  by  Eusebius  and 
Clem.  Alex.),  speaks  of  the  Law  having  been  translated 
into  Greek  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  and 
of  Demetrius  Phalereus  having  been  employed  on  the 
work.  There  are  certain  diliiculties  with  respect  to 
Aristobulus'  story,  which  does  not  correspond  with 
that  of  Aristeas,  although  it  points  to  the  same 
tradition.  Aristobulus  was  probably  teacher  of  Ph^- 
lometor,  and  lived  in  the  commencement  of  the 
second  century  before  Christ. 

See  Hody,  De  Biblior.  textihus  orig.,  1705.  Valckenaer, 
Diatribe  de   Aristobulo  Judcso,   1806.     Schiirer,    Gesch.   des 

jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi,  2te  Ausg.  1886, 
1889.      Graetz,    Monatschrift,    1876.      Joel,    Blicke    in    die 

Religions- Gesch.  znm  Anfang  des  zweit.  chri.stl.  Jahrh.,  1880. 

However  distorted  the  legend,  it  is  certain  that  the 
translation  of  the  LXX.  originated  in  Egypt,  and  in 
the  time  of  the  early  Ptolemies  received  general  recog- 


THE   GREEK    VERSIONS,  55 

iiition  (see  Ap2^.).    The  Jews  in  Egypt,  whose  numbers 
were  increased   by  the  transportation    of   thousands 
thither  in  B.C.  320,  soon  lost  all  familiarity  with  their 
own  language.     The  Law  was  probably  interpreted 
very  early  into  Greek  in  their  synagogues,  just  as  in 
other  places  it  had  been  interpreted  into  Ai-amaic. 
All  such  translations  had  a  tendency  to  become  fixed, 
and  after  a  while,  for  practical  purposes ,  were  com- 
mitted  to   writing.     The   Pentateuch   was   the   first 
portion  translated,  and  the  translation  of  the  other 
books  followed  in  due  time  as  a  matter  of  course.     A 
Greek  translation  of  all  the  books  was  in  existence  \ 
prior  to  the  composition  of  the  Wisdom  of  the  Son 
of  Sirach,  or  Ecclesiasticus,  in  the  prologue  to  which 
book  reference  is  made  to  such  a  translation.     It  is, 
however,  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  Sirach's  work 
is  to  be  assigned  to  a  date  so  early  as  B.C.  237-211, 
or  to  be  brought  down  so  late  as  B.C.  132.     The  title 
"LXX."   was  probably  given  to  the  Greek  transla- 
tion of  the  Holy   Scriptures,  because,  when  issued, 
the  translation  met  with  approval,  and  received  the 
sanction   of   the    Jewish    Sanhedrin.      The    number, 
"  seventy-two,"  sprang  from  the  conviction  that  such 
a  work  must  have  been  the  work  of  all  Israel.     But 
the  sanction  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  withdrawn,  pro- 
bably in  consequence  of  the  reaction  against  everything 
Greek,  consequent  on  the  events  of  the  Maccabean 
era  (b.c.  175-135).    The  execution  of  a  Greek  trans- 
lation at  the  request  of  king  Ptolemy  is  noticed  in 
the  Talmud,  although  the  number  of  the  translators 
is  there   reduced   to    five,   and   the   birthday  of    the 
translation'  is  stigmatised  as  a  day  as  fatal  to  Israel 


56  THE   GREEK   VERSION'S. 

as  that  on  which  the  golden  calf  was  made.  Hence  the 
fast  day  appointed  on  the  8th  of  the  month  of  Tebeth. 
Comp.  Mas.  Soferim,  1,  and  the  notes  in  Dr.  J. 
]Miiller's  edition,  Megillah,  3tt,  Megillath  Taanith,  9a. 

2.  The  LXX.  Version  was  the  production  of  a 
number  of  translators.  The  Pentateuch  is  the  best 
portion  translated;  next  Job  and  Proverbs.  Jeremiah 
has  been  treated  with  peculiar  freedom,  and  possibly 
rests  upon  another  recension  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  worst,  though  peculiarly 
important  from  an  exegetical  point  of  view.  The 
LXX.  translation  of  that  book  was,  since  the  days  of 
Irenseus  and  Hippolytus,  supplanted  by  the  version 
of  Theodotion,  and  was  only  brought  to  light  again 
about  a  century  ago. 

The  literature  on  the  LXX.  is  very  extensive,  and  only  a  few 
works  can  be  mentioned.  On  Morinus'  work  see  p.  3  ;  on  Hody, 
p.  54.  Most  important  are :  Frankel's  Vorstudien  zu  der  Seiitua- 
ginta,  1841  ;  Geiger's  Urschrift  (see  p.  34) ;  his  Nachgelassene 
Scliriften,  iv.  73  ff.  ;  Th.  Studer,  Be  vers.  Alex.  orig.  ii.su  et 
dbmu,  1823  ;  Eb.  Nestle,  Scjytuaginta  Studien,  1886  ;  the 
articles  in  the  various  Bibl.  Dictionaries,  C.  Siegfried,  Philo 
iind  der  icherlicferte  Text  der  LXX.  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeit- 
schrift,  1873.  The  following  scholars  have  written  on  the 
LXX.  transl.  of  the  various  books  of  0.  T.  :  Pent.,  Thiersch, 
1841  ;  Joshua,  Hollenberg,  1876  ;  Judges  and  Ruth,  Fritzsche, 
1864, 1867  ;  Samuel,  Thenius,  Wellhausen  and  Driver;  Isaiah, 
A.  Scholz,  1880  ;  Jeremiah,  Wichelhaus,  1847;  A.  Scholz,  1875; 
Kiihl,  1882  ;  Workman,  1889 ;  EzeMel,  A.  Merx,  Jahrh.f.  prot. 
Tlieol.,  1883  ;  Cornill,  see  under  EzeMel ;  Minor  Proph., 
Vollers,  Das  Dodelia-proph.  d.  Alex.,  1880,  and  in  Stade's 
Theol.,  1882 ;  Proverbs,  Lagarde,  1863  ;  Graetz,  Mcmatschrift, 
1884;    Job,  Bickell,  1862  (see  Apj).')',    EccUs.,  Freadenthal, 


THE  GREEK  VERSIONS.  57 

Hclhrmt.  Stwlien,  1875.  Grinfield's  Apol.  for  the  iXX, 
1850,  is  interestincr. 

The  value  of  the  LXX.  is  great,  but  the  facts 
ah-eady  mentioned  show  that  in  the  correction  of  the 
Hebrew  text  it  must  be  used  with  great  caution. 
Much  remains  to  be  done  ere  the  very  text  of  that 
version  can  be  said  to  be  fairly  settled. 

3.  The  editions  of  the  LXX.  are  mentioned  in  all 
the  larger  Biblical  Dictionaries.  The  text  in  the 
Complutensian  Polyglott  has  been  ascertained  to  be 
in  the  main  that  of  Lucian's  recension,  based,  how- 
ever, upon  MSS,  of  no  great  antiquity.  The  Roman 
edition  (issued  under  the  authority  of  Sixtus  V.,  and 
known  as  the  Sixtine)  was  based  mainly  upon  the 
Vatican  codex,  although  by  no  means  an  accui*ate 
representation  of  that  MS.  The  London  Polyglott 
in  general  follows  its  text.  The  Oxford  edition  of 
J.  E.  Grabe,  published  in  four  folios  (1707-1720), 
was  mainly  based  on  the  Alexandrian  codex.  The 
great  edition  of  Holmes  and  Parsons,  in  five  folios 
(1798-1827),  gives  a  valuable  collation  of  various 
readings,  though  deficient  in  accuracy  and  arrangement. 

The  small  quarto  edition  of  L.  Bos  (1709)  is  useful, 
because  with  numerous  variants  it  also  contains  the 
readings  of  the  other  Greek  translations.  It  must, 
however,  be  used  with  caution.  Tischendorf's  edition 
was  first  published  in  1850.  Though  less  ambitious 
than  that  of  Holmes  and  Parsons,  and  although  it 
does  not  give  so  many  variants  as  Bos,  it  is  far  in 
advance  of  both  editions.  It  follows  the  Sixtine,  but 
contains  variants  of  the  uncials.  The  second  edition 
was  published  in  1856  with  the  Chigi  Daniel   (see 


58  THE   GREEK  VERSIONS. 

p.  60),  and  the  fifth  was  published  after  the  death 
of  Tischendorf  in  1875.  E.  Nestle  edited  the  sixth 
edition  in  1880,  and  a  seventh  edition  in  1887.  Both 
contain  a  valuable  supplement  by  Nestle,  issued  also 
separately,  which  gives  a  more  complete  collation  of 
the  Sixtine  text  with  the  Vatican,  Alexandrian,  and 
Sinaitic  texts,  etc.  Dr.  H.  B.  Swete,  now  Regius 
Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  published  in  1887 
the  first  volume  (Gen.— IV.  Kings)  of  a  manual  edition 
of  The  Old  Testament  in  Greelc  according  to  the  LXX. 
edited  for  the  Syndics  of  the  University  Press,  with 
the  variants  of  the  most  important  uncial  MSS. 
The  second  volume,  containing  1  Chron.  to  Tobit,  is 
now  (1891)  published.  A  larger  and  more  important 
edition  is  in  preparation.  An  English  translation  of 
the  LXX.  has  been  published,  The  Septuagint  Version 
of  the  Old  Testament,  ivith  an  English  Translation, 
Various  Readings,  and  Critical  Notes.  London :  S. 
Bagster  and  Sons.  All  such  works  must  be  used  with 
caution. 

i  facsimile  of  the  Alex.  MS.,  the  uncial  of  the  fifth  ceatur^ 
known  as  A.,  was  first  published  by  H.  H.  Baber,  3  vols.  fol. 
1816-21,  and  more  satisfactorily  in  autotype  under  edit,  of  E.  M 
Thompson;  vol.  1,  Gen.-2  Chr.,  1881  ;  vol.  2,  Hos.-4th  Mace, 
1883  ;  vol.  iii.,  Ps.-Eccl.,  1883,  completing  the  O.  T.  The  N.  T. 
was  published  m  1879.  The  facsimile  edit,  of  the  Vatican  MS., 
the  uncial  of  the  fourth  century  known  as  B.,  which  was  pre- 
pared by  Card.  Mai,  was  finally  published  at  Rome,  under  the 
editorship  of  C.  Vercellone  and  J.  Cozza,  the  O,  T.  in  four 
vols.,  1869-1872;  vol.  v.,  containing  the  N.  T.,  was  pubhshed 
in  1868.  Vol.  vi.,  published  in  1881,  contains  very  incomplete 
Prolegomena.  A  photographic  reproduction  of  the  O.  T.  is 
announced.     The  photographic  edit,   of  the  N.  T.  has  K>een 


THE   GREEK    VERSIONS.  59 

published.  The  Sinaitic  MS.  is  an  uncial  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  is  known  as  X-  A  portion  of  it  was  published 
under  the  title  of  Cod.  Frederico- Aug .  in  1816,  and  the  larger 
portion  of  the  remainder  under  title  of  Bihl.  Codex  Sinaitic  us 
Petropol.,  at  St.  Petersburg,  in  three  vols,  in  1862.  Some  further 
fragments  of  Gen.  and  Num.  have  appeared  under  title  Ai)}}. 
cod.  celeh.  Sin.,  Vat.,  Alex.,  Leipzig,  1867.  The  other  uncials  are 
Cod.  Cott.  Geneseos,  known  as  D.,  at  Brit.  Mus.,  partly  destroyed 
by  fire,  given  in  Tischendorf's  3Ionum.  sacra  ined.  nov.  coll., 
vol.  iL,  1857,  and  further  in  F.  W.  Gotch's  Siq^plement,  Lond., 
1881.  E.  is  the  Cod.  Bodl.  Geneseos,  also  in  same  vol.  of 
Tischendorf.  F.  is  the  Cod.  Amhros.  (Gen.  xxxi.  15-Josh.  xii. 
12  with  gaps),  edited  by  Ceriani  in  Monum.  sacr.  et  'profana, 
Medio].,  1864. 

4.  The  text  of  the  LXX.  put  forth  by  Origen  (a.d. 
236)  in  his  Hexapla  (see  p.  61),  was  soon  recognised 
as  the  €07)17)1071  {Koivrj)  or  accepted  text.  Later, 
Lucianus,  Presbyter  of  Antioch,  who  died  as  a  martyr 
in  A.D.  311,  issued  a  revised  text,  widely  accepted  in 
Syria  and  elsewhere.  About  the  same  time  Hesychius, 
bishop  and  martyr  (died  310  or  311  in  Egypt), 
executed  another  revision,  used  extensively  in  that 
country.  Paul  de  Lagarde  published  the  first  part  of 
a  restoration  of  the  Lucianic  recension  in  his  Librorum 
V.  T.  caiion.  -pars  prior  Grcace,  1883  (541  pp.,  with 
xvi.  pp.  of  preface),  and  is  now  preparing  the  2nd  vol. 
See  also  Field,  Origenis  Hexapl..,  Prolegomena,  cap.  ix., 
and  Driver,  NoUs  on  Samuel,  Introd.,  pp.  l.-Hi. 

5.  There  are  two  concordances  to  the  LXX.,  that  of  Kircher, 
1607,  in  4to ;  or,  better,  that  of  Trommius,  2  vols.  foL,  1718, 
neither  satisfactory.  The  first  fascic.  of  Dr.  Hatch's  Concord- 
ance to  the  LXX.  is  in  press,  and  will  soon  be  published. 
The  Lexicon  to  the  LXX.  of  J.  Ch.  Biel,  3  vols.,  1779,  edited  in 
a  considerably  enlarged  form  in  6  vols,  by  J.  F.  Schleusner, 


60  THE  GREEK  VERSIONS. 

1821,  is  in  many  respects  defective.    C.  A.  Wahl  edited  a  useful 
Clavis  Lihh.  V.  T.  AjJocryiyh.^  in  4to,  1853. 

6.  The  Book  of  Daniel  according  to  the  LXX. 
was  first  published  by  Simon  de  Magistris,  in  1772; 
afterwards,  from  the  Chigi  codex,  by  H.  A.  Hahn, 
1845,  and  given  in  Tischendorf's  editions  of  the  LXX. 
since  1856.  More  critically  by  J.  Cozza  in  his  Sac. 
Bib.  vetustiss.jrag,  grceca  et  lat.,  Pars  iii.,  Romse,  1877. 

The  ancient  versions  which  are  based  on  the  LXX. 
are  the  Itala  (see  chap,  ix.),  the  Hexaplar  Syriac  (see 
chap,  vii.),  and  the  Ethiopic,  though  now  considered 
not  to  have  been  made  directly  from  the  Greek,  as 
also  the  Egyptian  translations  (Coptic  and  Sahidic). 
See  Strack's  Einleitung,  3rd  edit.,  pp.  271,  272. 

7.  The  other  Greek  Translations. — (1)  Aquila,  like 
the  jG-^^ish  Christian  of  the  same  name  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  was  a  native  of  Pontus. 
His  name  in  Greek  is  'AKvAas,  in  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud  it  is  Hebraised  D^''pi;,  but  in  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  it  is  written  Dl^pJIJ^  (see  chap,  vi.,  p.  43). 
Aquila  was  a  Greek  proselyte  to  Judaism,  and 
executed  his  translation  from  a  polemical  standpoint 
as  a  counterpoise  to  the  LXX.  translation,  which 
was  quoted  by  Christians  in  favour  of  their  views. 
His  translation  seems  to  have  been  well  received  by 
the  Jews.  Only  fragments  of  it  unfortunately  are 
extant.  These  prove  it  to  have  been  slavishly  literal, 
full  of  Hebraisms,  and  often  only  to  be  understood 
by  reference  to  the  Hebrew.  It  is  a  question  of 
debate  whether  the  extant  translation  of  Ecclesiastes 
is  not  mainly  the  version  of  Aquila,  and  though  the 
evidence  is  on  the  whole  rather  against  that  theory, 


TEE  GREEK  VERSIONS.  Gl 

there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  LXX.  translation  of 
that  book  has  incorporated  not  a  few  of  the  readings 
of  Aquila.  The  version  of  Aquila  is  at  least  as  old 
as  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian. 

(2)  Theodotion  (©eoSortW,  sometimes  called  ®c6' 
horo<5)  was  according  to  Irenseus  a  Jewish  proselyte 
of  Ephesus,  and  according  to  Eusebius,  an  Ebionite. 
As  he  is  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr  (cir.  160)  he 
must  have  wi'itten  prior  to  that  date.  His  transla- 
tion was  in  several  respects  a  revision  of  the  LXX. 
His  translation  of  Daniel  wholly  supplanted  the 
latter  in  ecclesiastical  use.  But  of  the  other  books 
only  fragments  of  his  version  are  extant. 

(3)  Symmachus  (^vfx}xaxo<s)  appears  to  have  exe- 
cuted his  version  somewhat  later  than  Theodotion. 
According  to  Eusebius  he  was  an  Ebionite ;  according 
to  Epiphanius  a  Samaritan,  who  became  a  Jewish 
proselyte.  He  aimed  at  combining  perspicuity  of 
translation  with  fidelity  to  the  original.  Only  frag- 
ments of  his  translation  are  also  extant. 

These  three  translations  comprehended  only  the 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  not  the 
apocryphal. 

(4)  The  fragments  of  three  other  Greek  versions  have 
come  down  to  us  with  the  remains  of  the  Hexapla 
of  Origen.  That  work  was  so  called  from  the  six 
columns  it  contained,  in  which  were  (1)  the  Hebrew 
text  in  Hebrew,  (2)  the  Hebrew  written  in  Greek 
characters,  with  the  versions  of  (3)  Aquila,  (4)  Sym- 
machus, (5)  the  LXX.,  and  (6)  Theodotion.  Words 
wanting  in  the  LXX.  were  supplied,  generally  from 
Theodotion's  version,  and  marked  with  asterisks  ',{-^) 


62  THE   GREEK   VERSIONS. 

words  in  the  LXX.  in  excess  of  the  original  text  were 
marked  with  an  ohelos  (  -f- ),  the  shape  of  which  mark  is 
not  always  uniform.  The  copyists,  however,  often  mis- 
understood these  and  other  critical  marks,  and  hence 
many  errors  have  crept  into  the  LXX.  text,  which 
not  unfrequently  contains  conflate  or  duplicate  ren- 
derings. The  name  Tetrapla  was  sometimes  given 
to  Origen's  work,  from  editions  which  contained  only 
the  four  columns  of  the  Greek  versions  of  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  LXX.,  and  Theodotion.  The  three  other 
Greek  translations  are  in  some  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  referred  to  by  Origen,  designated  Quinta, 
Sexta,  and  Septima.  The  work  of  Origen  was  some- 
times designated  He'pta'pla  and  even  Octapla,  from 
occasionally  containing  seven  or  eight  columns. 

8.  Bern,  de  Montfaucon  edited  in  1713  the  fragments  of 
Origen's  work  which  remain,  in  2  vols,  folio.  But  the  most 
complete  and  scholarly  edition  is  that  issued  from  the  Oxford 
Press,  Origenis  Hcxaplorum  qn/B  supersunt :  sive  Veteruin 
interpretum  Grcecomm  in  totum  Veins  Test,  Pragmenta.  Post 
P^laminium  Nbhilium,  Drusinm,  et  3Iontrfalconinni,  adhih. 
etiam  vers.  Syro-Hexaplari,  coneinnavit,  emend,  et  multis 
partihus  auxit  Fredericus  Field,  A.M.  2  vols.  4to,  1875.  See 
addenda  on  Aquila,  Symm.  and  Theod.  in  Field's  Otium 
Nnrvicense,  Parti.,  1864. 

9.  In  the  Hexapla  the  name  nirr*  is  written  in 
Greek  mill.  This  fact,  mentioned  by  Jerome,  arose 
from  ignorance  in  the  scribes,  and  in  the  wish  to 
reproduce  the  appearance  of  the  sacred  name.  For  n 
in  older  forms  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  was  written 
almost  like  n,  and  the  downstroke  of  the  *  was 
sometimes  prolonged  so  as  to  be  like  1.      The  Greek 


THE   GREEK   VERSIONS.  63 

nini  is  a  close  resemblance  of  nini  {p^^n")  as  the  word 
presented  itself  to  their  unpractised  eyes. 

10.  The  Greek  translation,  known  as  the  Grnecns 
Venetiis,  discovered  in  MS.  in  the  library  of  St. 
Mark,  Venice,  is  no  authority  for  the  ancient 
reading  of  the  Hebrew  text.  It  cannot  be  older 
than  A.D.  1200,  for  the  translator  was  acquainted 
with  Kimchi's  Book  of  Roots,  and  it  was  evidently 
executed  from  a  pointed  Hebrew  text.  It  is,  how- 
ever, otherwise  of  much  interest.  The  version,  though 
sometimes  barbarous  Greek,  is  executed  with  great 
fidelity.  Its  author  was  a  Jew  acquainted  with  Greek 
literature,  and  with  considerable  insight  into  Hebrew. 
The  best  edition  is  that  of  Gebhardt :  Grcecus  Venetus, 
Pentateuchi,  Proverbiorum,  Ruth,  Cantici,  EccUsiastce, 
Thren.j  Danielis,  Versio  Grceca.  Ex  unico  Bihl. 
S.  Marci  Venetce  codice  nunc  pi'imum  imo  vol.  com- 
prehensani  atque  apjiaratu  critico  et  phil.  instructam 
ed.  0.  Gebhardt.  Prce/atus  est  F.  Deliizsch,  1875. 
Delitzsch  considers  its  author  was  an  eminent  Jewish 
scholar  of  the  name  of  Elissaeus  {V'^"hii)  who  flourished 
in  the  fourteenth  century. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  ANCIENT  LATIN  VERSIONS. 

1.  r  I  iHE  version  known  as  the  Itala  is  the  more 
J-  ancient  of  the  two  Latin  versions.  The 
Itala  is  a  very  literal  translation  of  the  LXX.,  even 
to  the  extent  of  slavishly  copying  evident  blunders, 
and  hence  it  is  of  the  greatest  value  as  a  witness  to 
the  LXX.  text.  It  was  executed  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, by  unknown  translators.  Jerome  speaks  of 
only  one  such  translation,  while  Augustine  seems  to 
refer  to  several.  The  name  Itala  is  derived  from 
a  passage  in  Augustine  (De  Doct.  Christ.,  ii.),  where 
according  to  Kreyssig  and  Eichhorn  the  name  arose 
from  an  error  of  a  scribe.  If  the  word  Itala  be 
the  true  reading  the  version  originated  in  Italy. 
The  version  has,  however,  been  preserved  only  in 
extensive  fragments,  the  only  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament preserved  entire  being  the  Psalter,  the  Book 
of  Esther,  with  the  apocryphal  books : — the  third  Book 
of  Ezra,  Tobit,  Judith,  Baruch,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus, 
and  Maccabees. 

The  best  edition  of  what  remains  is  that  of  Sabatier  :  Bihl. 
s.  Latince  Verss.  antiques  s.  Vetvs  Italica  et  cceterce  qncecunque 
in  codd.  mser.  et  anticpioruni  lihris  reiJeriri  jfotuerunt,  1739- 
1749,  3  vols,  folio,  and  with  a  new  title  by  Didot,  1761.  The 
third  vol.  contains  the  New   Testament.     Fragments  from 


THE  ANCIENT  LATIN   VERSIONS.       65 

palimpsests  have  been  published  by  F.  Mlinter,  1819  ;  and  by 
Ernst  Ranke  in  1871.  Fragments  of  other  antehieronymian 
versions,  e.g.  of  1  and  2  Kings,  have  been  published  by  J. 
Haupt,  Vindob.,  1877,  and  by  Ulysse  Eobert,  Pent,  vers, 
Lat.  antiqnis.nma  e  cod.  lAigd.,  Paris,  1881.  See  also  L 
Ziegler,  Bie  lat.  Bilelubersetzungen  tor  Hieron.  u.  die  Itala 
des  Avgustinns,  Miinchen,  1879  (pp.  135,  4to).  H.  Ronsch, 
Itala  U7id  Vulgata.  Das  Sjn'achidiom  der  urchristl.  Itala 
und  hathol.  Vvlgata,  etc.  Marburg,  1869  (pp.  510).  Also 
Eonsch's  articles  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitsckrift  f.  wissensch. 
Theol,  1875,  1876  and  1881. 


2.  The  Vulgate.  As  numerous  corruptions  crept 
into  the  old  Latin  version,  Jerome  in  382  set  to  work  to 
revise  that  translation.  His  first  edition  of  the  Psalter 
was  a  simple  revision  of  the  Itala.  The  revision  is 
known  as  the  Psalterium  Romanum,  and  was  used  up 
to  the  time  of  Pius  V.  in  the  Bom  an  Church.  Portions 
of  it  are  yet  to  be  found  in  the  Missal  and  Breviary. 
But  the  work  was  done  too  hastily  to  be  satisfactory. 
Jerome  next  revised  many  portions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament version  after  Origen's  Hexaplar  text  of  the 
LXX.  Of  that  revision  only  the  Psalter  and  the 
Book  of  Job  are  extant.  The  revised  translation  of 
the  Psalms  is  known  as  the  Psalterium  Gallicanum, 
because  it  came  into  common  use  in  Gaul.  Jerome 
then  proceeded  to  translate  the  Psalms  directly  from 
Hebrew,  and  extended  his  translation  to  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  inclusive  of  some  of  the 
Apocryphal  books.  The  work  was  completed  between 
A.D.  390-405.  Jerome's  revision  of  the  Psalms  known 
as  the  Galilean  had,  however,  obtained  so  firm  a  footing 
that  that  version  was  incorporated  into  the  Yulgate, 

5 


66       THE   ANCIENT  LATIN   VERSIONS. 

and  not  the  translation  from  the  Hebrew.  Jerome's 
translation  of  the  Psalter  from  the  Hebrew  has  been 
separately  edited  by  P.  de  Lagarde  (Leipzig,  1874), 
and  it  is  contained  in  the  Liber  Psahnorum  Heh. 
atque  Latinus  ah  Hieronymo  ex  Hehrceo  conversus, 
consociata  opera  ediderunt  C.  d&  Tischendorf,  S.  JBaer, 
F.  Delitzsch.  Lipsise,  1874.  It  is  also  to  be  found  in 
Bagster's  Bihlia  Ecclesice  Polyglotta.  1843. 

3.  Jerome's  Revised  Version  met  with  the  bitterest 
opposition,  and,  although  he  strove  to  conciliate  oppo- 
nents, to  the  serious  detriment  of  the  work,  by  adhering 
as  closely  as  possible  to  the  older  version,  it  was  long 
ere  it  won  popular  favour.  Jerome  dictated  his 
translation  to  an  amanuensis,  and  this  fact,  combined 
with  the  common  use  of  the  older  version,  and  the 
carelessness  of  the  scribes,  led  to  the  serious  deprava- 
tion of  the  translation.  In  process  of  time  it  was 
generally  received,  and  termed  the  common  version 
or  Vulgate.  Alcuin,  the  preceptor  of  Charlemagne, 
elBfected  something  in  the  early  part  of  the  ninth 
century  (801)  towards  a  restoration  of  Jerome's 
translation,  followed  by  Theodulf ,  Bishop  of  Orleans ; 
and  several  attempts  were  made  by  other  scholars 
in  the  same  direction  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
centuries,  and  by  Correctoria  biblica  in  the  thirteenth. 
The  result  was,  however,  the  still  further  corruption 
of  the  text. 

4.  The  Vulgate  was  among  the  first,  if  not  the 
very  first  book  printed,  but  the  earliest  books  were 
unfortunately  printed  without  dates.  The  earliest 
editions,  however,  were  printed  from  comparatively 
modern  MSS.,  and  hence  are  of  little  authority. 


THE  ANCIENT  LATIN   VERSIONS.       67 

5.  Cardinal  Ximenes'  edition  of  the  Vulgate  in 
the  Complutensian  Polyglott  (1514-1517)  was  the 
first  attempt  at  a  critical  text.  R.  Stephanus  issued 
several  improved  editions,  first  in  1528,  and  later  in 
fclio  in  1540.  For  the  latter  work  he  collated  four- 
teen MSS.,  and  several  printed  editions. 

6.  The  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (Sess.  iv., 
April  8th,  1546)  declared  the  Vulgate  "authentic." 
This  authorisation  of  the  Vulgate  necessitated  the 
publication  of  a  standard  text,  and  an  "  editio 
authentica"  appeared  under  Sixtus  V.  in  1590.  The 
edition  was  declared  in  the  Papal  Bull  to  be  "  vera, 
legitima,  authentica  et  indubitata  in  omnibus  pub- 
licis  privatisque  disputationibus."  But  ere  it  was 
issued  many  readings  had  to  be  emended  by  printed 
slips  pasted  over  the  printed  text,  and  other  correc- 
tions were  made  with  the  pen.  A  new  edition,  after 
considerable  controversy  both  without  and  within  the 
Eoman  Church,  was  issued  in  1592  in  the  Pontificate 
of  Clement  VIII.  The  text  of  the  latter  edition  is  said 
to  difier  from  the  former  in  about  three  thousand 
places.  Other  editions  followed  in  1593  and  in  1598, 
each  with  considerable  variations. 

7.  A  critical  edition  of  Jerome's  translation  has  not 
yet  appeared,  although  materials  have  been  collected 
for  such  an  edition  by  the  labours  of  many  scholars, 
especially  for  the  New  Testament  portion.  Vercellone 
(see  p.  68)  has  collected  important  material  for  the 
correction  of  the  Old  Testament  text.  The  English 
Biblical  student  will  do  well  to  consult  the  version 
known  as  The  Douay  Version  as  being  an  accredited, 
if  not  absolutely   "  authentic,"  English  translation  of 


68       THE    ANCIENT  LATIN  VERSIONS. 

the  Vulgate,  in  use  in  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church. 
For  critical  purposes  that  translation  must  be  verified 
by  reference  to  the  Latin  original. 

The  text  of  the  present  Vulgate  is  by  no  means 
uniform.  The  Old  Testament  is  often  a  composition 
of  the  Itala  and  of  Jerome.  The  greater  portion  of 
the  work  contains  Jerome's  translation  from  the 
Hebrew.  The  version  of  the  Psalms  as  already  noticed 
is  that  of  the  Galilean  Psalter.  Jerome  added  in  his 
version  critical  marks  after  the  example  of  Origen 
(see  p.  61).  But  these  have  utterly  disappeared,  to 
the  great  detriment  of  the  integrity  of  the  text.  The 
Apocryphal  Books  of  Baruch,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus, 
and  the  Maccabees  are  taken  from  the  Itala. 

8.  See  Bellum  Pajyale  s.  concordia  discors  Sixti  V.  et  Cle~ 
vientis  VIII.  circa  Hierimyimanain  edit.  Auctore  Thomas 
James,  Lond.,  1600.  G.  Kiegler,  Kritische  Gesch.  d.  Vulg., 
Salzbach,  1820.  Leander  van  Ess  (Rom.  Cath.),  Pvagmatisch- 
Tirit.  Gesch.  d.  Vulg.,  Tlibing.,  1824.  F.  Kaulen  (Eom.  Cath.), 
Gesch.  d.  Vnlg.  (502  pp.),  Mainz  1868  ;  also  his  Handh.  zur 
Vulg.  (280  pp.),  1870.  Bukentop,  Liix  de  Uice  lihh.  tres 
[lib.  iii.  on  the  Sixtine  ed.].  See  also  the  Bible  Dictionaries, 
especially  the  articles  by  0.  F.  Fritzsche  in  the  Prot,  Eeal- 
Encyclo]). 

I  Varies  Lectiones  Vulg.  Lat.  Bill.  edit,  quas  Carolus  Vercel- 
lone,  Sodalis  Barnabites  digessit,  4to.  This  work,  which  was 
issued  at  Eome  under  Papal  patronage,  has  been  left  unfinished 
by  the  death  of  the  learned  editor.  Only  thi-ee  parts  have 
appeared  :  Tom.  i.,  Pent.,  1860.  Tom.  ii.,  Pars  i.,  Josue,  Jiid., 
Ruth  et  I.  Peg.,  1862.  Tom.  ii.,  Pars  ii.,  Libb.  II,  III,  IV, 
Reg.,  186-4.  Vercellone  also  edited  a  4to  edition  of  the  Vulgate, 
Rom.  1861. 

Bibl.   sacra   Latina    V.   T,  Hieron.  interj).  ex  antiquiss. 
auet.  in  stichos  descrijjt.  Vulg.  led,  ,  ,  ,  test,  comitatur  cod. 


THE  ANCIENT  LATIN   VERSIONS.      69 

Amiatini  latinortim  omnium  antiquiss.  ed.  instit.  .  .  Thsod. 
Heyse,  ad  fin.  perdnx.  C.  de  Tischendorf,  1873.  See  also 
Baethgen  in  Zeitschrift  f.  alt-test.  Wiss.,  1881  ;  and  Lagarde, 
Probe  ei7ier  neuen  Ausgahe  der  lat.  Uehersetzungen  d.  A.  T., 
Gott.,  1885. 


PAET  II. 


CHAPTEE  X. 

THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

1,  /npHE  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
J_  commonly  termed  the  Five  Books  of  Moses, 
and  designated  the  Pentateuch.  The  Greek  name  is 
Y)  7r€VTdTev)(o<s  scil.  /3ij8A.o5,  the  word  TrevTOLT^vxos  being 
used  as  an  adjective.  To  tcOxos  properly  denoted  the 
box,  or  chest  in  which  the  rolls  were  kept,  and  was 
used  also  by  Symmachus  as  a  synonyme  for  the  Hebrew 
np)ip,  or  roll.  The  Latin  Pentateuchus  is  masculine, 
the  word  Uher  being  supplied.  The  most  common 
Hebrew  title  is  the  Law  (the  Torah,  ni'inrt,  Neh.  viii. 
2ff),  also  called  The  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses  (Neh. 
viii.  1),  and  other  designations  (Neh.  viii.  3,  ix.  3, 
xiii.  1).  It  is  commonly  termed  in  the  Talmud  and 
by  the  Rabbins  nninn  ^t^^n  n^pn,  the  five-ffths  of 
the  Law.     Other  titles  may  here  be  passed  over. 

2.  The  Pentateuch  occupies  in  the  Old  Testament 
a  position  akin  to  that  which  the  Four  Gospels  occupy 
in  the  New.  The  account  of  our  Lord's  life  presented 
in  the  Four  Gospels  is  the  basis  on  which  the  system 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      71 

of  faith  and  doctrine  taught  by  the  other  wiiters  of 
the  New  Testament  is  founded.  Similarly  the  history 
and  theology  of  the  Pentateuch  underlie  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Even  if  it  could  be 
proved  that  the  details  of  the  Israel itish  ritual  set 
forth  in  the  Pentateuch  do  not  altogether  harmonise 
with  the  references  thereto  in  the  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  indisputable  that  the  facts  of 
history  set  forth  in  the  Pentateuch  are  everywhere 
accepted  in  the  other  books  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
whether  historical,  prophetical,  or  poetical. 

3.  The  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch  do  not,  how- 
ever, constitute  a  complete  work.  The  Book  of  Joshua 
is  required  to  finish  the  history,  and  to  give  symmetry 
to  its  several  component  parts.  Nor  does  the  Book 
of  Joshua  viewed  separately  present  the  appearance 
of  a  complete  historical  work.  It  is  but  the  closiug 
portion  of  the  history  begun  in  the  Pentateuch.  The 
partition  of  the  land  of  Canaan  among  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel  is  only  the  sequel  of  the  narrative  of 
the  Exodus,  to  which  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  a  grand 
introduction.  Hence  there  is  much  in  favour  of  the 
opinion  now  prevalent  among  critics,  that  the  Hebrew 
Scripture  commences  with  a  Hexateuch  rather  than 
with  a  Pentateuch — i.e.,  that  they  open  with  an 
historical  work  consisting  originally  of  six  books. 

The  acceptance,  however,  of  this  hypothesis,  now 
adopted  by  the  best  critics,  does  not  necessarily  run 
counter  to  the  substantial  recognition  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  earlier  Five  Books.  The  Pentateuch 
does  not  claim  as  a  whole  to  have  been  written  by 
Moses.     It  contains  statements  {e.g.  Exod.  xi.  3  and 


72      THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL, 

Num.  xii.  3)  wliicli  cannot  easily  be  reconciled  w^th 
the  traditional  view,  and  passages  which,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  most  earnest  defenders  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship,  must  have  been  added  long  after 
the  date  of  Moses. 

4.  Portions  of  the  work,  and  those  by  no  means 
inconsiderable,  are  unquestionably  ascribed  to  Moses. 
These  are:  (1)  "The  Book  of  the  Covenant,"  Exod. 
xx.-xxiii. ;  see  Exod.  xxiv,  4-7.  (2)  The  Book  of  the 
Renewed  Covenant,  Exod.  xxxiv.  10-26;  see  ver.  27. 
(3)  The  Divine  decree  concerning  the  destruction  of 
Amalek,  Exod.  xvii.  14.    (4)  The  list  of  the  stations  of 

*  the  journeys  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  Num.  xxxiii., 
which  claims  to  be  a  compilation  from  the  records  of 
the  Lawgiver;  see  Num.  xxxiii.  2.  (5)  "The  Law" 
referred  to  in  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  11,  24-26  is  stated  to 
be  Mosaic,  although  the  exact  extent,  however,  of 
that  "  Law  "  is  doubtful.  Some  critics  suppose  it  to 
include  the  whole  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  be- 
cause that  book  professes  to  contain  the  substance  of 
Moses'  last  addresses  to  the  children  of  Israel ;  others 
consider  "  the  Law "  spoken  of  to  have  been  more 
restricted.  (6)  The  Song  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxxii. ; 
see  Deut.  xxxi.  19,  22.  And  (7)  "The  Blessing"  of 
the  twelve  tribes,  Deut.  xxxiii. 

5.  The  division  of  the  Pentateuch  itself  into  five 
separate  books  is  not  generally  recognised  in  Hebrew 
MSS.  In  MSS.  the  five  books  are  treated  as  one,  and 
are  divided  into  larger  and  smaller  sections,  numbered 
consecutively  from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the 
end  of  Deuteronomy.  The  disdsion  into  books  is  not, 
however,  on  that  account  to  be  regarded  as  either 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      73 

modern  or  arbitrary.  The  extant  Hebrew  MSS.  are 
too  modern  to  be  any  authority  on  such  a  point, 
while  the  work  itself  naturally  falls  into  these  five 
portions,  more  or  less  independent  of  each  other. 
The  Book  of  Joshua  in  Hebrew  MSS.  is  always 
regarded  as  a  separate  work. 

6.  The  arrangement  of  the  Mosaic  writings  as  a 
completed  Pentateuch,  and  the  treatment  of  the 
Book  of  Joshua  as  an  independent  history,  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In 
the  writings  of  that  period  the  five  books  together 
are  variously  referred  to  as  "  the  book  of  the  Torah," 
or  "  Law "  (Neh.  viii.  3),  "  the  Law "  (Neh.  viii.  2), 
"the  Law  of  God"  (Neb.  viii.  8),  and  "the  Law 
of  Moses"  (Ezra  iii.  2;  Mai.  iii.  22,  E.  Y.  iv.  4). 
Similar  designations  occur  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  the  Jewish  Scriptures  are  referred  to  as  a 
whole  under  the  title,  "  Moses  and  the  Prophets," 
and  where  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  quoted 
as  "Moses,"  or  "the  Law."  The  expression  "the 
Law  "  is,  however,  also  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  designate  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
general.  See  John  x.  34,  xii.  34,  xv.  25 ;  1  Cor. 
xiv.  21. 

7.  The  Psalter  was  arranged  in  five  books  as  far 
back  as  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (see  ch.  xiv.  §  2),  and  that 
division  had  special  reference  to  the  five  books  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The Midrash  on  Ps.  i.  1  observes:  "Moses 
gave  tjhie  Israelites  the  five  books  of  the  Law,  and, 
corresponding  to  these,  David  gave  to  them  the  Book 
of  the  Psalms,  in  which  are  five  books."  Delitzsch 
remarks:    "This  division  into  five  parts  makes  the 


74      THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

Psalter  a  copy  and  echo  of  the  Torah,  which  it 
resembles  also  in  this,  that  as  in  the  Torah,  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  sections  alternate,  so  in  the  Psalter, 
there  is  a  group  of  Elohistic  Psalms  (Pss.  xlii.-lxxxiv.) 
enclosed  on  both  sides  by  groups  of  Jehovistic  Psalms 
(Pss.  i.-xli.  and  Ixxxv.  to  cl.)."  The  Psalter  was  so 
arranged  that  the  opening  Psalms  of  each  of  its  five 
books  should  correspond  with  the  several  books  of 
the  Pentateuch.  The  first  book  of  tho  Psalter  com- 
mences with  Ps.  i.,  which  in  its  phraseology  brings 
back  to  memory  the  garden  of  Eden  and  the  streams 
by  which  it  was  irrigated.  The  second  book  com- 
mences with  Ps.  xlii.,  which  treats  of  the  affliction 
in  Egypt,  and  the  deliverance  from  thence  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  corresponding  thus  with  the  Book 
of  Exodus.  The  third  book  begins  with  Ps.  Ixxiii., 
which  recounts  the  goodness  of  God  in  giving  Israel 
the  Law  (detailed  in  Leviticus),  which  Law  was  an 
abiding  mercy,  however  severely  Israel  might  be 
oppressed  by  their  Gentile  conquerors.  The  fourth 
book  opens  with  Ps.  xc,  the  "  prayer  of  Moses,  the 
man  of  God ;  "  and  in  the  numbering  of  the  days  of 
human  existence  spoken  of  in  ver.  1 2  the  pious  editors 
of  the  Psalter,  no  doubt,  saw  an  apt  reference  to  the 
numbering  of  the  people  narrated  in  the  fourth  Book 
of  Moses.  The  fifth  and  last  book  of  the  Psalter 
begins  with  Ps.  cvii.,  in  which  "  the  goodness  "  of  the 
Lord  in  days  of  trouble  and  distress  is  insisted  on  as 
vouchsafed  in  answer  to  prayer.  The  Psalm  is  a 
fitting  parallel  to  Moses'  recapitulation  of  the  in- 
stances of  God's  lovingkindness  to  Israel  set  forth 
in  Deuteronomy. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      75 

8.  Although  the  division  of  the  Mosaic  books  into 
five,  and  their  separation  from  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
with  whicii  they  seem  once  to  have  been  united,  is  of 
remote  antiquity,  the  first  writer  known  to  use  the 
name  "  Pentateuch "  {Pentateuchus,  scil.  liher)  is  the 
Latin  Father,  TertuUian  {Contra  Marc,  i.  10).  The 
name  occurs  in  Tertullian's  writings  in  such  a  way 
as  to  show,  however,  that  the  expression  was  not  one 
specially  invented  by  himself.  The  designation  was 
also  employed  by  Origen  {in  Joann.,  cap.  26),  r] 
7rei/TaT€i;;^os  (/5t^A,o?). 

9.  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch 
was  affirmed  by  the  ancient  Jewish  authorities. 
They  maintained  that  even  the  concluding  verses  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  record  the  death  and  burial  of 
the  great  Lawgiver,  were  written  by  him  "with  tears" 
in  anticipation  of  his  approaching  end.  So  Josephus, 
Philo,  and  the  Talmud  in  Baha  Bathra,  15  a,  Mena- 
choth,  30a.  The  extravagance  of  such  an  idea  was 
seen  somewhat  later,  and  the  verses  at  the  end  of 
Deuteronomy  were  then  ascribed  to  Joshua.  The 
early  Christian  writers  at  first  accepted  without 
examination  the  conclusions  of  the  Jewish  writers. 
Some,  however,  as  Jerome  and  Theodoret,  expressed 
doubts  on  the  point  whether  the  Pentateuch  was  the 
work  of  Moses  or  Ezra. 

Modern  critics  who  call  in  question  the  Mosaic 
authorship  often  reject  "the  supernatural."  It  is, 
therefore,  ^;m?ic^  facie  not  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  they  have  been  led  to  deny  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship by  the  wish  to  bring  down  the  ancient  Hebrew 
literature  to  the  level  of  the  other  ancient  literatures. 


76      TEE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

But  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  has 
been  called  in  question  by  many  investigators  who 
have  no  desire  whatever  to  detract  from  the  authority, 
or  to  deny  the  Divine  inspiration,  of  the  books  in 
question.  Theological  prepossessions  ought  not,  there- 
fore, to  be  permitted  to  stand  in  the  way  of  historical 
investigation.  The  Book  of  the  Psalter  retains  its 
full  value  and  importance,  whatever  conclusions  be 
arrived  at  as  to  the  credibility  of  the  titles  prefixed 
to  the  different  Psalms,  and  the  same  can  be  main- 
tained substantially  in  reference  to  the  Books  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

Some  theologians  have  sought  to  settle  the  question 
by  adducing  the  statements  (see  p.  73),  of  our  Lord 
and  His  Apostles.  Our  Lord  refers  to  the  Pentateuch 
as  the  writings  of  Moses  (John  v.  45-47,  etc.),  and 
speaks  of  the  Law  as  given  by  Moses  (John  vii.  19), 
which  statement  is  repeated  by  St.  John  (John  i.  17). 
Commandments  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  are  cited 
as  directions  of  Moses  (Matt.  viii.  4;  Mark  vii.  10; 
Luke  XX.  37,  etc.).  All,  however,  that  can  be  fairly 
deduced  from  such  statements  is,  the  Pentateuch 
contains  portions  written  by  Moses.  It  does  not 
follow  that  the  five  books  as  a  whole  were  written 
by  that  lawgiver.  Nor  is  it  derogatory  to  our  Lord's 
Divinity  to  maintain  that  He  argued  from  the  Jewish 
standpoint,  without  necessarily  endorsing  the  truth 
of  the  popular  opinion.     Comp.  Luke  xi.  1 9. 

10.  The  modern  notion  of  the  fame  of  authorship 
was  not  largely  prevalent  among  the  Hebrews.  The 
ancient  Israelites  did  not  exhibit  that  pride  in 
literary  composition  common  among  Gentile  nations. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      77 

Stress  was  laid  upon  what  was  written,  rather  than 
upon  the  authorship  of  the  writing  itself.  It  was 
not  till  after  the  Jews  had  come  into  connection  with 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  that  the  individual  pride  of 
literary  authorship  was  aroused  in  the  Hebrew  breast. 
The  reaction  against  heathen  literature  awakened  by 
the  events  of  the  Maccabee  period  led  to  the  deprecia- 
tion of  anything  in  the  shape  of  literary  production. 
For  centuries  after  that  period  "  the  holy  books  "  were 
as  a  rule  the  only  compositions  committed  to  writing. 
The  sententious  sayings  of  the  "  wise  men  "  of  Israel, 
their  parables,  Biblical  expositions,  vernacular  para- 
phrases of  the  sacred  books  (often  embellished  with 
stories  and  legends),  and  their  discussions,  even  on  the 
most  intricate  questions  of  law  and  ritual,  were  all 
exclusively  committed  to  the  faithful  and  well-trained 
memories  of  disciples.* 

11.  The  phenomena  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  those  writings  were  re-edited 
from  time  to  time,  and  that  notes  and  additions  of 
a  later  period  were  not  unfrequently  introduced  into 
the  more  ancient  texts.  The  care  and  strictness  in 
the  copying  of  the  sacred  MSS.  enjoined  by  the  Jews 
in  post-Christian  times  was  comparatively  unknown 
at  an  earlier  era.  In  the  Jewish  Targums,  text  and 
comments  are  hopelessly  blended,  and  the  same 
phenomenon  is  apparent  in  many  places  of  the  LXX. 
version.  This  practice  prevailed  not  from  any  desire 
to  falsify  the  sacred  writings,  but  with  the  object  of 

*  See  on  this  point,  J.  S.  Bloch,  Studien  zur  Gesch.  d. 
Sammlung  der  alt-heh.  Liter  at  ur,  and  the  Excursus  at  the 
end  of  my  Koheleth,  pp.  456,  484. 


78  THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

their  explanation.  The  Hebrew  language  itself  must 
have  been  repeatedly  modernised,  although  to  what 
extent  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  The  sacred 
books  were  not,  indeed,  "  tampered  with,"  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  term.  The  laws  set  forth  in  the 
Pentateuch,  although  essentially  Mosaic,  underwent 
revision  at  a  later  period,  to  be  adapted  to  the  altered 
circumstances  of  the  nation.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
some  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  should  be  extant  only  in 
a  revised  form;  but  it  is  remarkable  that  so  many 
have  been  handed  down  to  us,  redolent  of  the  air  of 
the  desert  and  of  the  circumstances  of  camp  life.  The 
necessary  modification  of  laws  in  the  process  of  time 
has  been  too  often  left  out  of  consideration.  The 
Pentateuch  itself  contains  instances  of  laws  modified 
even  in  the  time  of  Moses,  e.g.  the  enactments  as  to 
the  property  of  women  (Num.  xxxvi.),  etc.  Many 
similar  modifications  must  have  taken  place  in  the 
course  of  Israel's  troubled  history  (see  p.  82).  The 
ritual  itself  demanded  occasional  modifications,  which 
were  justifiable  so  long  as  the  spirit  and  object  of  the 
legislation  were  retained.  Some  of  these  may,  perhaps, 
be  traced  to  a  limited  extent,  but  no  details  can  be 
laid  down  with  any  certainty.  Notwithstanding  the 
frequent  apostasies  of  Israel,  no  modification  of  ritual 
or  of  song  was  ever  made  in  the  direction  of  idolatry. 
The  Pentateuch  was  the  store-house  of  the  laws  and 
religion  of  Israel.  Its  books  were  placed  under  the 
guardianship,  not  only  of  the  priests  and  prophets 
(often  at  discord  with  one  another),  but  of  the  whole 
nation.  Had  the  Pentateuch  been  preserved  in  its 
archaic  form,  it  would  have  been  a  peculium  of  the 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      79 

priests,  but  could  not  have  been  safeguarded  by  the 
people.  But  being  in  the  possession  of  the  people,  no 
modifications  of  importance  could  have  been  made  ex- 
cept under  competent  authority,  although  occasionally 
necessary  in  order  to  make  the  Law  a  practical  guide 
for  religious  duty  and  national  life.  The  Pentateuch, 
as  its  contents  show,  was  not  intended  to  be  an 
archaeological  curiosity,  to  be  muttered,  chanted,  or 
even  expounded,  by  a  learned  priesthood.  It  was  the 
common  possession  of  the  nati«i  at  large. 

Critical  investigation,  indeed,  has  revealed  the  fact 
that  all  the  historical  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon 
are  artificially  linked  together  in  order  to  form  one 
continuous  history  of  "  the  holy  nation."  They  were 
probably  thus  united  together  under  the  superintend- 
ance  of  Ezra,  who  was  in  many  respects  a  second 
Moses.  Links  were  designedly  added  to  each  book  to 
unite  them  into  one  grand  whole.  Those  "  links  "  are 
sometimes  found  in  references  in  the  middle  of  the 
books.  But  the  most  remarkable  are  the  connecting 
links  ("  and  ")  with  which  each  of  the  five  great  sub- 
divisions commence.  For  as  the  Law,  or  Pentateuch, 
was  subdivided  into  its  five  books,  so  also  the  historical 
books,  inclusive  of  the  Law  itself,  were  similarly 
arranged  in  five  parts,  to  wit :  (1)  the  Law,  or 
Pentateuch ;  (2)  Joshua ;  (3)  Judges ;  (4)  The  Books 
of  Samuel ;  (5)  The  Books  of  Kings.  The  other 
books  classified  in  the  English  Bible  (after  the  order 
of  the  Latin  Yulgate)  among  the  historical  books, 
namely  the  Books  of  Buth  and  Chronicles,  are  not 
found  in  that  order  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  are 
placed  among  the  Hagiographa.     See  pp.  38,  39. 


80      THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

12.  The  arguments  in  favour  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  here  set  forth  even  in 
outline.  Nor  can  any  impartial  summary  be  given  of 
the  arguments  on  the  opposite  side.  The  references  to 
its  histories  and  laws  found  in  the  other  Old  Testament 
books,  are  in  favoiu-  of  a  Mosaic  authorship.  Some 
of  its  laws  wero  applicable  only  to  a  nomadic  people 
like  Israel  in  the  desert,  others  could  only  be  obeyed 
when  the  people  were  in  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan.  Some  became  obsolete  when  the  territories 
of  the  individual  tribes  were  no  longer  preserved ; 
others  when  the  political  circumstances  of  the  nation 
rendered  it  impossible  to  observe  much  of  the  legisla- 
tion designed  for  the  maintenance  of  individual  or  of 
ecclesiastical  property.  The  ritual  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement  became  in  many  details  obsolete  after  the 
Exile ;  when  the  injunctions  concerning  the  construc- 
tion and  removal  of  the  Tabernacle  were  no  longer  of 
importance.  The  knowledge  of  Egyptian  customs 
which  characterises  Genesis  and  Exodus  cannot  be 
satisfactorily  accounted  for  on  the  theory  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Pentateuch  after  the  Exile.  And  even 
those  portions  of  Genesis  (such  as  the  history  of  the 
flood)  w^hich  seem  to  show  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  literature,  contain  important 
indications  of  belonging  themselves  to  a  far  earlier 
period.     See  p.  105. 

13.  The  unity  of  design  traceable  throughout  the 
Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch  is  remarkable.  The  work 
is  no  patchwork  put  together  without  a  definite 
object.  Though  its  composite  character  may  be 
admitted,  the  documents  made  use  of  are  united  and 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      81 

interwoven  so  as  to  form  a  work  remarkable  for  unity 
of  purpose.  The  differences  in  details,  brought  to 
light  by  critical  analysis  (which  has  too  often  exhibited 
a  hypercritical  tendency),  are  not  destructive  of  the 
general  harmony  of  the  Pentateuch,  any  more  than 
the  variations  in  detail  which  exist  in  the  Gospels. 
Such  differences  when  duly  weighed  are  confirmatory 
of  the  main  facts  of  the  history. 

The  object  of  the  Hexateuch  was  to  relate  the  _ 
history  of  Israel  up  to  the  occupation  of  Canaan.- 
The  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxii.  7-12),  gives  a  summary 
of  the  contents  of  the  history.  The  accounts  of  the 
creation,  and  of  the  peopling  of  the  world,  are  intro- 
ductory to  the  narrative  of  the  call  of  Abraham,  and 
the  history  of  Israel's  progenitors.  Whatever  sub- 
sidiary information  be  imparted,  the  main  object  in 
view  was  never  forgotten.  The  work  is  not  a  secular 
history ;  it  is  not  a  collection  of  national  legends ;  it 
is  a  religious  history  ;  a  history  sui  generis.  The  God 
of  Israel  who  guided  the  patriarchs  in  their  wander- 
ings is  ever  represented  not  as  a  mere  national 
divinity,  but  as  the  God  of  the  whole  earth.  The 
selection  or  election  of  Israel  is  related  not  as  a  matter 
of  national  pride,  but  as  an  event  of  world-wide 
importance.  Abraham  was  called  out  of  the  midst 
of  idolaters,  that  in  him  "  all  the  families  of  the 
earth"  might  "be  blessed"  (Gen.  xii.  3).  The 
Pentateuch,  as  well  as  the  New  Testament,  teaches 
the  doctrine  that  Israel  was  chosen  with  the  ultimate 
object  distinctly  in  view,  that  through  Israel  the 
world  might  be  blessed.  "  Salvation  is  from  the 
Jews  "  (John  iv.  22). 


82      THE  PENTATEUCH  IiY  GENERAL, 

14.  In  examining  the  Mosaic  records,  and  tabulating 
the  differences  in  detail  which  are  to  be  found  in  the 
laws  themselves,  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  gradual 
expansion  of  law  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The 
same  phenomenon  exists  in  the  laws  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  sets  forth 
many  of  the  most  remarkable  features  of  our  Lord's 
teaching.  But  strange  conclusions  might  be  drawn 
from  it,  if  its  doctrines  were  considered  without 
reference  to  later  developments.  The  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  sets  forth  the  duties  of  individuals.  But  the 
duties  of  individuals  become  necessarily  modified  when 
considered  in  relation  to  the  family,  society,  or  nation. 
The  readiness  to  forgive  injuries,  which  is  so  commend- 
able in  an  individual,  would  -be  highly  detrimental  in 
the  case  of  a  judge.  Laws  which  are  good  under 
some  circumstances  may,  when  the  conditions  are 
altered,  become  even  hurtful.  Variations  in  a  com- 
mandment do  not  necessarily  imply  difference  of 
authorship,  nor  are  differences  of  detail  in  narratives 
always  to  be  regarded  as  contradictions.  If  the  first 
directions  which  our  Lord  gave  to  the  Apostles  and 
to  the  Seventy  (Luke  ix.  3,  x.  4)  had  been  preserved, 
and  the  altered  commands  given  at  a  later  period 
(Luke  xxii.  35,  36)  had  been  left  unrecorded,  a  very 
different  opinion  would  be  formed  of  the  early  Christian 
ministry.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  latter  directions 
had  been  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  and 
omitted  in  that  of  St.  Luke,  the  fact  would  have  long 
ago  been  paraded  as  a  conclusive  argument  against 
the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The 
differences  existing  in  the  Pentateuch  as  to  the  details 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL.      83 

of  ritual,  etc.,  ought,  therefore,  to  be  well-weighed 
before  being  brought  forward  as  fatal  to  unity  of 
authorship  or  of  design. 

15.  The  composite  character  of  t£e  Pentateuch  is, 
indeed,  one  of  the  accepted  results  of  modern  criticism. 
The  old  traditional  view  can  be  no  longer  regarded 
as  correct.  The  dogmatism  of  the  old  divines  on  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch  is  no 
longer  defensible.  But  the  ship  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  not  thereby  left  to  be  driven  hither  and  thither  on 
the  stormy  ocean  of  the  so-called  "  higher  criticism." 
Satisfactory  evidence  (part  of  which  has  been  alluded 
to  already)  can  be  adduced  to  prove  that  the  main 
outlines  of  the  work  are  Mosaic.  A  bold  and  fearless 
attitude,  however,  on  all  such  questions  on  the  part 
of  the  Biblical  student  is  more  likely  to  convince  gain- 
sayers,  and  to  inspire  confidence,  than  a  timid  appeal 
to  authority  by  the  endeavour  to  put  an  undue  strain 
on  New  Testament  statements.  The  history  of  Biblical 
criticism  in  past  ages  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  warning 
to  theologians  not  to  have  recourse  to  a  line  of  argu- 
mentation which  again  and  again  has  proved  disastrous 
to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  which,  in  place  of  driving 
away  the  clouds  of  scepticism,  has  tended  only  to 
foster  unbelief  among  students.  The  safest  course 
for  the  apologists  of  the  Bible  to  adopt  is  boldly  to 
argue  that  the  foundations  of  faith  are  in  reality 
unafi'ected  by  any  conclusions  which  may  be  arrived 
at  on  purely  literary  questions.  Such  an  attitude 
has  been  already  judiciously  assumed,  even  with  regard 
to  the  Gospels,  by  E,ow,  in  his  work  on  the  Jesus 
of  the  Evangelists,  and  in  his  Bampton  Lectures.    And 


84      TEE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL. 

a  similar  attitude  ought  to  be  assumed  in  relation 
to  Old  Testament  investigations  in  general,  and  to 
inquiries  into  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
particular.  No  theories  of  inspiration  can  be  per- 
mitted to  stifle  investigation.  The  existence  of  the 
"  supernatural "  in  Scripture  and  the  Divine  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophets  and  "  holy  men  of  old  "is  by  no 
means  shaken  by  the  fact  of  historical  discrepancies, 
or  even  by  occasional  contradictions  in  books  which 
have  come  down  to  us  from  such  distant  ages.  Those 
who,  in  the  face  of  modern  critical  investigation,  affirm 
the  necessity  of  a  belief  in  the  historical  infallibility 
of  every  fact  recorded  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  verily 
"  know  not  neither  what  they  say  nor  whereof  they 
affirm." 


CHAPTEH  XI. 

SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  PENTATEUCH 
CRITICISM. 

1.  rriHE  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
-^  the  Pentateuch  on  the  part  of  some  of  the 
early  heretics  was  based  on  dogmatic  and  not  on 
critical  reasons.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  how 
early  critical  doubts  on  the  subject  first  arose  among 
the  Jews.  The  fact  that  Ibn  Ezra  (ob.  circa  1167)  con- 
troverted the  views  of  a  critic  of  the  eleventh  century 
after  Christ,  who  assigned  portions  of  Genesis  to  the 
time  of  Jehoshaphat,  is  a  proof  that  the  old  Jewish 
scholars  were  not  unanimous  on  the  question.  Among 
the  scholars  of  the  Reformation,  Carlstadt  (1520), 
on  critical  grounds,  called  in  question  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch,  although 
he  regarded  the  Law  as  Mosaic.  He  thus  anticipated 
the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  conservative  scholars 
in  the  present  day.  Masius  (1574)  maintained  that 
the  Pentateuch  received  its  present  shape  from  Ezra. 
The  critics  of  the  following  centuries  explained  the 
anachronisms  of  the  books,  and  the  other  discrepancies 
which  were  successively  brought  to  light,  by  supposing 
that  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  contained  moie  or 
less  extensive  interpolations. 


86  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

2.  The  work  of  Astrnc  (1753),  a  distinguished 
Professor  of  Medicine  at  Paris,  gave  a  new  direction 
to  critical  investigation.  Like  his  great  predecessor 
Yitringa,  Astruc  maintained  that  Moses  made  use  of 
earlier  documents  in  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  that  large  portions  of  those  documents  were  in- 
corporated wholesale  into  his  work.  The  documents 
so  incorporated  were,  he  maintained,  easily  distin- 
guishable from  each  other  by  their  use  of  different 
names  for  the  Divine  Being,  one  document  using 
exclusively  the  name  Eloliim  (God),  wliile  another 
preferred  to  employ  the  name  Jehovah  (or  Jahveh). 
Astruc  maintained,  however,  that  besides  the  main 
Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents,  Moses  made 
use  of  nine  other  minor  writings,  which  could  be 
distinguished  by  careful  study  and  comparison  of 
passages.  His  theory  was  expanded  by  subsequent 
scholars,  the  majority  of  whom  denied  even  a  Mosaic 
editorship,  some  assigning  the  Pentateuch  to  the 
period  wliich  intervened  between  Joshua  and  Samuel, 
and  others  to  a  later  date. 

3.  The  wiitings  of  Astruc,  and  of  the  scholars  who 
followed,  gave  rise  to  various  theories  on  the  subject  of 
the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  {a)  Thefragment- 
hypothesis  had  been  propounded  earlier  by  Peyrer 
(1655)  and  Spinoza  (1670),  but  their  suggestions 
had  been  generally  disregarded.  The  theory  was 
now  adopted  with  considerable  variety  of  detail 
by  Alex,  Geddes  (1792-1800),  a  learned  and  free- 
thinking  Roman  Catholic;  by  J.  S.  Vater  (1802- 
1805);  A.  Th.  Hartmann  (1831),  etc.  According 
to  it,  the  Pentateuch  was  composed  by  the  piecing 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  87 

together  of  a  number  of  fragments,  often  united 
without  a  very  definite  plan.  Tliis  hypothesis,  though 
it  held  its  ground  for  a  time,  was  finally  abandoned 
as  untenable.  (6)  It  was  followed  by  the  enlarge- 
7)ient  or  completion-hypothesis,  according  to  which  the 
Elohistic  portion  of  the  work  was  viewed  as  the  basis, 
and  the  whole  supposed  to  have  been  revised  by  a 
later  editor,  the  Jehovist,  who  added  to  it  not  only 
a  considerable  number  of  fresh  sections,  but  also 
notes  throughout.  Deuteronomy  was,  according  to 
this  theory,  supposed  to  be  the  latest  portion  of  the 
work.  This  hypothesis,  which  would  now  be  con- 
sidered conservative,  was  upheld  by  a  number  of 
eminent  scholars,  among  whom  Tuch  (1838),  Bleek 
(ob.  1859),  and  Knobel  (ob.  1863)  may  perhaps  be 
mentioned  as  the  most  remarkable,  (c)  The  document- 
hyj^othesis,  which  is  still  the  prevailing  theory, 
requires  more  particular  notice,  as  well  as  (d)  the 
Graf-Wellhausen-hypothesis,  which  is  a  modification  of 
the  latter  with,  however,  important  differences.  See 
pp.  95  fr. 

4.  The  critical  theories  of  de  Wette  (1817-184-4) 
were  from  the  first  unfavourable  to  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  According  to  him, 
the  only  Mosaic  fragment  in  existence  was  the 
Decalogue.  Although  his  opinions  on  the  point  were 
strongly  opposed  by  eminent  scholars,  his  arguments 
in  proof  that  Deuteronomy  and  the  other  four  books 
were  the  work  of  different  authors  gradually  won 
general  acceptance,  and  were  carried  further  by 
Bleek,  who  maintained  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  w^as  an 
integral  part  of  the  completed  work,  and  consequently 


88  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  originally  commenced  with 
a  Hexateuch.     See  p.  71. 

5.  The  Document -hyjyothesis.  The  researches  of 
Ewald  and  others  led  to  the  general  acceptance 
among  critics  of  the  view  that  the  Elohistic  and 
Jehovistic  documents  could  be  distinctly  traced 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch;  although 
the  special  peculiarity  in  the  use  of  the  Divine  names, 
which  gave  rise  to  the  nomenclature  in  question,  did 
not  extend  beyond  Exod.  vi.  The  existence  of  the 
documents  was  afterwards  traced  throughout  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  and,  according  to  some,  traces  of 
them  are  to  be  found  even  in  the  Book  of  Judges. 
The  Elohistic  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  were  re- 
garded by  Ewald,  Hupfeld,  and  others,  to  be  the 
work  of  several  authors,  the  Elohistic  portions  being 
generally  considered  more  ancient  than  the  Jehovistic. 

The  four  documents  out  of  which  the  Hexateuch 
was  supposed  to  have  been  originally  drawn  up,  are, 
the  First  Elohist,  the  Second  Elohist,  the  Jehovist, 
and  the  Deuteronomist.  (1)  The  First  Elohist,  whose 
narrative  was  assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  woik. 
This  document  embraces  portions  of  Genesis,  most  of 
Exodus  and  Leviticus.  Fragments  of  it  are  found  in 
Numbers,  in  a  few  passages  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
throughout  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua.  The  narrative  of  the  First  Elohist  was 
termed  by  Ewald  the  Book  of  Origins,  and  by  Noldeke 
the  foundation-document.  It  is  variously  designated 
by  other  scholars.  Schrader  terms  it  the  Anncdist, 
Dillmann  simply  denotes  it  by  A.  Wellhausen  has 
styled  it  the  Book   of  the  Four  Covenards,  namely, 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  89 

those  recorded  in  Gen.  i.  28-30,  ix.  1-17,  xvii.,  Exod. 
vi.  2  ff.).  Hence  he  distinguishes  it  by  the  letter  Q, 
an  abbreviation  of  the  Latin  quatuor.  Inasmuch  as 
the  object  of  the  writer  was  to  extend  the  knowledge 
of  the  Law  among  the  people,  and  the  book  was  drawn 
up  by  one  closely  connected  with  the  priestly  order, 
Wellhausen  has  given  it  (as  finally  enlarged  by  various 
additions  made  throughout  its  whole  extent)  the 
name  of  the  Priests'  Code,  or  the  Priestly  Code.  It 
is,  therefore,  now  very  generally  referred  to  under  the 
abbreviation  PC,  or  P.  Within  the  work  thus  desig- 
nated, the  body  of  laws  contained  in  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. 
has  been  considered  so  peculiar,  as  to  have  necessarily 
constituted  a  separate  work  by  itself.  This  smaller 
portion  is  termed  by  Klostermann  and  Delitzsch  the 
Law  of  Holiness,  because  it  emphasizes  in  a  special 
manner  the  holiness  which  belongs  to  Jehovah,  and 
ought  to  characterize  His  people.  Hence  this  portion 
of  the  Priests'  Code  is  often  referred  to  as  HG.  (the 
initials  of  the  GiQVTasL,n^\\v2i^eHeiligkeits-Gesetz).  The 
English  initials  LH.  {Law  of  Holiness)  are,  however, 
substituted  for  the  German  in  the  lecent  English 
translation  of  Delitzsch's  New  Commentary  on  Genesis. 
Dillmann,  however,  terms  this  particular  corpus 
legum  the  Sinaitic  Law,  and  marks  it  by  S.  Kuenen 
again  refers  to  it  as  P^,  to  distinguish  it  from  P^,  by 
which  latter  sign  he  designates  the  Priests'  Code. 
This  smaller  body  of  law  is  supposed  to  have  had  a 
historical  introduction  prefixed  to  it,  parts  of  which 
may  possibly  have  been  incorporated  into  the  Priests' 
Code. 

(2)  The  Second,  or  Younger  Elohist,  is  generally  so 


90  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

called,  as  contrasted  with  the  former  writer.  Well- 
haiisen  and  his  followers,  however,  maintain  that 
the  wiiter  of  the  Priests'  Code  was  in  reality  the 
earlier.  This  Second  Elohist  is  sometimes  styled 
the  Theocratic  Narrator,  from  the  special  bent  of 
his  narrative.  The  document  is  marked  B  by  Dill- 
mann,  as  second  in  age  and  antiquity.  Kuenen, 
Delitzsch,  and  others  denote  it  by  E  {Elohist),  as 
they  conceive  the  writer  to  be  in  reality  the  earlier 
Elohist. 

(3)  The  Jehovist,  or,  more  properly,  the  Jahvist. 
The  vocalization  of  the  four-lettered  name  JHYH 
as  Jehovah,  is,  of  course,  critically  indefensible,  and 
is  merely  a  concession  to  popular  usage  (see  p.  36). 
The  Jehovistic  document  is  regarded  by  Dillmann  as 
third  in  order  of  antiquity,  and,  therefore,  marked 
C.  It  is,  however,  more  generally  indicated  by  J,  the 
initial  of  Jehovist.  The  writer  is  styled  by  Schrader 
"  the  prophe,tical  narrator."  The  connection  between 
the  Jehovist  and  the  Second  Elohist  is  generallj'- 
considered  one  of  the  most  perplexing  questions 
belonging  to  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  combination  of  the  two  latter  documents  is 
commonly  designated  by  JE. 

(4)  The  fourth  document  is  generally  known  as 
the  Deuteronomist,  and  designated  by  D  alike  by 
Dillmann  and  the  other  scholars,  although,  of  course, 
for  different  reasons.  The  fourth  writer  is  generally 
considered  to  have  had  before  him  the  writings  of 
the  three  earlier  comf)ilers  combined  into  a  connected 
history.  Hence  his  additions  inserted  in  the  other 
portions  of  the  work  were  denoted  by  the  letter  R 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  91 

{Redactor  or  Editor).  There  are  other  abbreviations 
occasionally  employed,  which,  though  they  may  annoy, 
need  not  confuse  the  student,  such  as  P^  P^  for  the 
earlier  and  later  editions  of  PC,  P^  R^  for  first  and 
second  editor,  J^  J^  for  first  and  second  Jehovist, 
D^  D^  for  first  and  second  Deuteronomist,  etc.  LL 
is  in  Colenso's  works  used  for  Later  Legislation. 

The  four  principal  writers  already  noticed  are  sup- 
posed also  to  have  made  use  of  earlier  documents, 
such  as :  the  Decalogue  (Exod.  xx.  2-17),  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.  22-xxiii.  19),  the  Song  of 
Moses  and  Miriam  (Exod.  xv.),  the  Book  of  the  Wars 
of  Jehovah  (Num.  xxi.  14,  15),  as  well  as  a  number 
of  minor  pieces — Israelitish — as  the  Song  of  the  Well 
(Num.  xxi.  17,  18);  or  Amorite  or  Moabitish,  like 
the  fragment  of  a  song  found  in  Num.  xx.  27-30,  the 
story  and  prophecies  of  Balaam  (Num.  xxii.-xxiv.). 
Further  documents  are  :  Moses'  Song  concerning  Israel 
(Deut.  xxxii.),  the  Blessing  of  the  Tribes  (Deut.  xxxiii.), 
the  Book  of  Jashar  (Josh.  x.  12, 13).  The  last-named 
book  contained  also  David's  Lament  over  Saul  and 
Jonathan  (2  Sam.  i.  8ff.),  and  cannot,  therefore,  have 
been  composed  earlier  than  David's  time ;  which  fact 
goes  far  to  prove  that  the  Book  of  Joshua,  as  we  have 
it,  is  itself  later  than  that  date. 

6.  The  Date  of  the  Documents,  (a)  Noldeke  assigns 
the  first  three  documents  to  the  tenth  or  ninth 
centuries  before  Christ.  According  to  his  view,  the 
writers  lived  at  dates  not  far  removed  from  each 
other.  The  Priests'  Code  cannot  have  been  the 
oldest  document;  but  it  cannot  have  been  much 
younger  than  the  other  documents,  and  may  perhaps 


92  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

be  assigned  to  about  800  B.C.  The  Deuteronomist 
wrote  shortly  prior  to  Josiah's  reformation. 

(5)  Schrader  assigns  the  Priests'  Code  to  the  days 
of  David.  According  to  that  scholar's  view,  the  Second 
Elohist  wrote  shortly  after  the  great  schism  between 
the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  (b.c.  975-950); 
while  the  Jeho\dst,  w^ho  combined  into  one  the  narra- 
tives of  the  two  preceding  ^viiters,  making  himself 
numerous  additions,  produced  his  work  between  B.C. 
825-800.  The  Deuteronomist  is  also  considered  by 
him  to  have  lived  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  to 
have  been  one  of  the  prophets.  The  latter  linked 
on  his  own  work  to  that  of  the  former  writers.  To 
the  Deuteronomist  belong  portions  of  Joshua.  The 
separation  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  from  the  Pentateuch 
took  place  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  very 
probably  received  official  sanction.  Schrader  considers 
that  the  Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  contain 
extracts  from  the  works  of  the  Second  Elohist  and 
the  Jehovist. 

It  may  be  well  to  note  that  the  Hexateuch,  when 
viewed  in  combination  with  the  three  Books  of  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings,  is  sometimes  styled  by  the  name 
Octateuck,  because  the  Book  of  Judges  in  its  original 
shape  is  supposed  to  have  included  Judges  and  1  Sam. 
i.-vii.,  the  remaining  portion  of  1  Sam.,  with  2  Sam. 
and  1  and  2  Kings,  being  regarded  as  forming  really 
one  work — the  Book  of  the  Kings. 

(c)  Dillmann  coincides  with  Noldeke  in  his  esti- 
mation of  the  age  of  the  Priests'  Code.  He  considers, 
however,  that  the  w^ork  contains  portions  which  go 
back   to   a   remote   antiquity,  such   as  that  portion 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM,         93 

specially  termed  by  him  the  Sinaitic  legislation  (p.  89). 
In  the  able  dissertation  appended  to  his  Commentary 
on  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  and  Joshua  (1886),  he 
strongly  combats  the  theories  of  Wellhaiisen  and 
Kuenen,  which  assign  that  document  to  post-exilic 
times.  The  Second  Elohist,  according  to  Dillmann, 
drew  up  his  work  in  the  first  half  of  the  ninth 
century,  prior  to  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  The 
Jehovist  is  assigned  to  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century,  and  the  Deuteronomist  to  the  seventh. 

{d)  Delitzsch  has  in  his  latest  writings  considerably 
modified  the  views  defended  in  his  earlier  works. 
Formerly  he  considered  Deuteronomy  as  in  the  main 
Mosaic,  and  written  by  some  of  those  personally 
acquainted  with  the  great  Lawgiver.  In  his  latest 
writings  he  has  substantially  given  in  his  adhesion 
to  those  who  maintain  that  the  Hexateuch  is  a  work 
formed  by  the  combination  of  the  four  great  docu- 
ments noted  above.  The  Book  of  Joshua,  according 
to  him,  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  Deuteronomy 
as  that  in  which  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  stands  to 
Ezra.  Delitzsch  justly  lays  great  emphasis  on  the 
fact  that  the  terms  Laio  and  Pentateuch  are  not 
identical.  The  Pentateuch  contains  the  Law,  but 
cannot  in  all  its  parts  be  identified  with  it,  although 
this  has  been  assumed  as  a  fact  by  the  vast  majority 
of  the  older  commentators.  Delitzsch  coincides  to  a 
very  considerable  extent  with  the  conclusions  already 
mentioned.  He  maintains,  indeed,  that  there  are 
large  Mosaic  elements  contained  in  the  Pentateuch, 
but  that  these  are  mixed  up  with  others  of  a  much 
later  date.     The  Priestly  Code  has,  indeed,  its  roots 


94  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

in  the  Mosaic  period,  but  belongs  as  a  whole  to  the 
close  of  the  Jewish  state.  It  is,  however,  as  a  whole, 
pre-exilian,  and  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel.  Ezekiel's 
work  was  influenced  by  it,  not  the  reverse.  Delitzsch 
considers  that  the  history  of  the  creation  and  onwards 
to  the  death  of  Joseph  was  written  in  very  ancient 
days.  The  Jehovist  and  the  Deuteronomist  were  post- 
Solomonic,  but  certainly  composed  before  the  days 
of  Isaiah.  There  may  be,  however,  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch  added  even  in  post-exilian  days. 

7.  The  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis.  The  theory 
which  is  at  present  most  in  favour  with  the  pro- 
gressive school  of  criticism  is  that  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis.  The  theory 
was  propounded  in  1835  by  both  Yatke  {B'lbl. 
Theolog.)  and  George  {Die  alter  en  jilcl.  Feste)^  but 
was  then  sharply  criticised,  and  fell  into  disrepute. 
Ed.  Reuss,  though  he  did  not  publish  his  views  so 
early,  had  in  his  lectures,  since  1833,  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  history  of  Israel  set  forth  in 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  contains  much  which 
conflicts  with  the  theory  that  the  Laws  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  in  force  among  that  people.  He 
further  maintained  that  the  Mosaic  code  was  utterly 
unknown  to  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  seventh 
centuries.  According  to  him,  Jeremiah  was  the 
earliest  prophet  who  knew  of  a  written  law  (ch.  ii.  8, 
xviii.  18,  etc.),  and  his  quotations  are  made  exclusively 
from  Deuteronomy.  Deuteronomy  (ch.  iv.  45-xxviii.) 
was  the  book  which  *'  the  priests  pretended  to  have 
found  in  the  temple  in  the  time  of  king  Josiah," 
and  that  code  of  law  is  the  most  ancient  part  of 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  95 

the  codified  legislation  contained  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Ezekiel  lived  prior  to  the  redaction  of  the  Kitual  code, 
and  of  the  laws  which  were  defi.nitely  arranged  by 
the  hierarchy.  Reuss'  Geschichte  appeared  first  in 
1864,  afterwards  in  1881  and  1890,  and  his  French 
work  on  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  in  1879.  But 
previous  to  their  publication,  K.  H.  Graf,  a  former 
pupil  of  Reuss,  published  essays  in  which  similar  views 
were  propounded,  in  1855,  1857,  1866,  in  Merx' 
Archiv  (1867-1869),  and  in  the  fii'st  part  of  a  work  on 
Die  geschichtl.  Bilcher,  1866.  He  maintained  that 
almost  the  whole  of  the  legal  portion  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  post-exilian,  and  of  a  later  age  than  the  historical 
narratives.  Graf  died  in  1866.  In  1874  Aug.  Kayser 
published  his  work,  Das  vorexil.  Buck  der  Urgeschichte 
Israels,  and  in  1881  articles  on  the  state  of  the 
Pentateuch  controversy.  In  these  publications  he 
defended  the  views  of  Graf,  and  maintained  that  the 
3arliest  Pentateuch  document  was  the  Jehovist,  next 
the  Deuteronomist,  and  last  of  all  the  Elohist. 

Professor  Kuenen,  of  Ley  den,  already  well  known 
as  a  Biblical  critic,  came  forward  in  defence  of 
Graf's  hypothesis  in  his  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  1869, 
1870,  translated  into  English  by  A.  H.  May,  3  vols., 
1881-2,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Moses, 
1872,  and  his  Hist.-krit.  Einleitung,  translated  into 
German,  1885-1890.     See  p.  8,  and  Appendix. 

But  the  most  able  exponent  of  the  theory  is 
unquestionably  J.  Wellhausen,  whose  work  on  the 
Text  of  Samuel,  published  in  1871,  excited  great 
attention.  His  articles  on  the  Composition  of  the 
Pentateuch   appeared   in    1876,   1877,  and    1878,  in 


96  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

which  year  he  published  the  fourth  edition  of  Bleek's 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  with  emendations 
of  his  own.  Among  other  works  may  be  mentioned 
his  Prolegomena  zur  Gesch.  Israels,  being  the  second 
edition  of  his  History  of  Israel,  vol.  i.,  originally 
published  in  1878.  His  article  on  "Israel"  in  the 
new  edition  of  the  Encychjy.  Britannica,  vol.  xiii., 
is  specially  interesting  for  English  students.  Well- 
hausen's  views  are  extremely  radical.  He  does 
not  acknowledge  even  the  Decalogue  to  be  Mosaic. 
The  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.  22-xxiii. 
19),  he  considers,  was  given  to  a  settled  agri- 
cultural people.  The  Jahvist  is  "of  the  golden  age 
of  Hebrew  literature  .  .  .  the  time  of  kings  and 
prophets"  prior  to  the  Assyrian  captivity.  The  work 
of  that  writer  "  breaks  off  suddenly  at  the  blessing 
of  Balaam."  Only  a  few  fragments  of  the  Jahvist 
occur  later,  as  in  Num.  xxv.  1-5  and  Deut.  xxxiv. 
The  Deuteronomist  was  composed  shortly  before  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  and  then  contained  only 
ch.  xii.-xxvi.  It  underwent  several  revisions  and 
enlargements  after  the  Exile.  The  Second  Elohist 
was  much  later  than  the  Jahvist,  and  similarly  edited. 
By  the  second  revisers  of  the  Deuteronomist  the  work 
of  the  Jahvist  and  Elohist  were  united  together,  and 
this  combination  marked  JE  is  what  Wellhausen 
terms  the  Jehovist,  as  contrasted  with  the  earlier 
Jahvist.  He  further  regards  the  body  of  laws  in  Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.  (see  ch.  v.  1)  as  post-exilian,  originating 
between  Ezekiel  and  the  Priests'  Code,  not  composed 
by  that  prophet,  but  nearly  related  to  him.  The 
portion  of  the  Hexateuch  which  remains  after  the 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  97 

exclusion  of  those  parts  belonging  to  the  Jahvist, 
Elohist,  and  Deuteronomist  is  regarded  as  later  than 
the  days  of  Ezekiel,  and  "  a  conglomerate  as  well  as 
the  work  of  an  entire  school."  The  Priests'  Code 
embraced,  with  some  few  exceptions,  Exod.  xxv.-xxxi., 
XXXV. -xL,  the  Book  of  Leviticus,  Num.  i.-x.,  xv.-xix., 
xxv.-xxxvi.  The  portions  which  originally  belonged 
to  "the  Book  of  the  Four  GWenants,"  termed  by 
other  scholars  the  First  Elohist,  are,  according  to 
Wellhausen,  Exod.  xxv.-xxix. ;  Lev.  ix.,  x.  1-5,  12-15, 
xvi. ;  Num.  i.  1-16,  i.  48  to  iii.  9,  15  to  ch.  x.  28,  and 
part  of  xvi.,  xvii.,  xviii.,  xxv.  6-19,  xxvi.,  xxvii.,  xxxii. 
in  part,  xxxiii.  50  to  xxxvi.  The  Pentateuch  formed 
by  the  combination  of  all  these  elements  was  finally 
published  by  Ezra  in  the  year  444 ;  for,  according  to 
Wellhausen,  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Law  of 
Ezra  was  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

In  this  sketch  of  Wellhausen's  views  we  have  partly 
drawn  on  the  able  article  entitled  "  Pentateuch," 
written  by  Strack,  in  Herzog-Plitt's  Encyclopddie. 
It  is  impossible  to  notice  the  details  of  all  the  recent 
modifications  of  the  theory.  Notwithstanding  the 
ability  with  which  the  hypothesis  has  been  put 
forward,  the  arguments  by  which  it  has  been 
defended  (to  which  justice  cannot  be  done  in  any 
bald  summary  of  results),  or  the  popularity  it  has 
attained  among  critics,  it  may  safely  be  predicted 
that  the  hypothesis  will  not  long  be  regarded  by  any 
number  of  scholars  as  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
question  of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch. 

8.  While  new  evidence  is  constantly  accumulating 
of   the  vast  extent  of   the  literature  and  historical 

7 


98  SKETCH  OF  THE   HISTORY 

knowledge  possessed  by  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Baby- 
lonians, and  Assyrians,  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory 
would  reduce  a  large  portion  of  Israelitish  history 
up  to  a  short  time  prior  to  the  Exile  to  a  mass 
of  legends  and  uncertain  traditions.  If  this  were  the 
case,  the  Israelites  must  have  been  far  inferior  in 
civilization  to  the  other  great  nations  with  whom 
they  came  in  contact,  although  so  vastly  superior  to 
those  nations  from  a  theological  point  of  view.  This 
fact  is  a  marvel  of  which  the  critics  of  this  school 
do  not  seem  to  have  any  conception,  while  in  other 
matters  they  exhibit  wonderful  subtlety.  The  non- 
observance  of  any  law  of  the  Pentateuch  is,  on  their 
theory,  constantly  assumed  to  be  a  proof  of  its  non- 
existence, although  many  similar  facts  can  bo  pointed 
out,  like  that  recorded  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  ff.  Their  idea, 
that  the  description  of  the  tabernacle  is  only  a  fancy 
sketch  copied  from  the  temple,  loses  sight  of  the  fact 
of  the  important  differences  between  the  two  erections. 
The  description  of  the  tabernacle  itself  is  so  minute 
in  its  details  as  to  admit  of  its  being  actually  con- 
structed from  the  sketch  presented  in  the  Book  of 
Exodus,  which  in  itself  is  a  proof  of  its  historical  exist- 
ence (see  App.).  It  is  hard  to  imagine  a  post-exilian 
writer  taking  a  dehght  in  working  out  such  details,  if 
purely  imaginary;  or  even  in  filling  up  minute  details, 
the  broad  outlines  of  which  were  only  derived  from 
tradition  handed  down  for  centuries.  It  is  especially 
important,  from  an  apologetic  point  of  view,  to 
observe  that  a  considerable  number  of  those  details 
are  devoid  of  any  special  sj^'mbohcal  significance.  The 
post-Kef ormation  interpreters  erred  widely  by  attempt- 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.  99 

ing  an  arbitrary  interpretation  of  all  those  details  in 
the  interest  of  their  peculiar  theological  opinions.  But 
those  theologians  committed  a  mistake  in  attempting 
to  read  their  theology  into  the  Old  Testament,  and 
they  went  much  further  than  is  justified  by  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  tabernacle  of  Moses,  like  the  temple  of  Solomon, 
had  unquestionably  an  historical  basis,  v/hile  the 
description  of  the  temple  of  Ezekiel  can  be  shown 
to  belong  entirely  to  the  region  of  the  ideal.  The 
popular  school  of  "unlearned  and  unstable"  ex- 
positors insists  blindly  upon  "literal  fulfilments" 
of  prophecy,  and  bid  us  conveniently  to  look  out 
to  the  future  for  anything  which  has  not  yet  been 
literally  fulfilled.  That  school  has  wrought  no 
little  mischief  in  the  exposition  of  Scripture,  and 
has  unwittingly  played,  as  George  Stanley  Faber 
long  ago  foresaw  it  would,  into  the  hands  of  the 
Rationalists. 

It  is  very  convenient,  on  the  other  hand,  for  scholars 
who  defend  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  to  seek 
to  get  rid  of  all,  or  many,  of  the  references  found  in 
the  Prophets  and  other  Scriptures  to  the  incidents  of 
early  days,  as  later  interpolations.  There  has  been, 
indeed,  on  the  pait  of  these  critics  too  great  a  dispo- 
sition to  "cook"  the  documents  examined,  and  to 
assume,  on  mere  hypothesis,  that  words,  sentences 
and  paragraphs  opposed  to  certain  theories  are  merely 
the  insertions  of  later  editors.  Many  facts  connected 
with  the  Levites  and  their  position,  which  are  per- 
fectly explicable  on  the  assumption  of  the  Pentateuch 
being   substantially  Mosaic,    become   bewildering  on 


100  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

any  other  theory.  Although  the  composite  character 
of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  regarded  as  fairly  proven, 
the  theory  of  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  is  un- 
likely to  obtain  general  acceptance.  Several  of  the 
points  accepted  by  the  more  conservative  Document- 
hypothesis  are  likely  ultimately  to  be  abandoned, 
as  accepted  on  insufficient  evidence.  The  conclu- 
sions generally  drawn  from  the  history  of  2  Elings 
xxii.  (and  2  Chron.  xxxiv.)  as  to  the  composition  of 
Deuteronomy  during  Josiah's  reign,  or  shortly  prior 
to  it,  cannot  be  justified  by  fail'  argumentation.  The 
persecution  which  took  place  in  the  days  of  Manasseh 
is  more  than  sufficient  to  account  for  the  general 
ignorance  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  early 
days  of  Josiah.  Critics  have  exhibited  too  great  an 
avidity  to  discover  discrepancies  where  none  exist, 
while  the  harmonists  have  erred  by  attempting  to 
harmonize  everything.  They  have  too  often  sought 
to  assume  for  their  hjrpotheses  the  position  of  well- 
ascertained  facts.  The  cautious  critic  will  admit 
discrepancies  where  they  really  exist,  but  no  further. 
Such  discrepancies  may,  or  may  not,  be  contradictions. . 
The  infallibility  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  a  theory 
which  only  embarrasses  an  honest  investigator,  and 
tends  to  obscure  important  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
Scriptures.  No  believing  theologian  will  admit  the 
existence  of  the  supernatural  in  a  Biblical  narrative 
to  be  a  proof  of  myth  or  legend.  Notwithstanding 
the  numerous  assaults  on  the  credibility  of  the 
Pentateuch,  its  narratives  are  likely  ere  long  not 
only  to  be  universally  admitted  as  historical  docu- 
ments of  the  highest  importance  and  antiquity,  but 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.         101 

as  documents  which  in  all  essential  matters  set  forth 
the  actual  facts  of  Israelitish  liistory. 

9.  Wellhausen's  views  are  set  forth  in  Die  Composition  des 
Hexateiiclis,  1889,  originally  in  Jhh.fiir  Deutscli.  Theol.,  1876 
and  1877,  and  in  his  article  on  Israel  in  the  Encycl.  Britannica  ; 
also  in  Proleg.  zur  Gesch.  Israels,  2nd  edit.,  1883,  and  in 
SMzzen  n.  Vorarheiten,  i.  1884.  Similar  views  are  set  forth 
in  Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel,  English  translation,  1874. 
(See  before,  p.  8.)  E.  Reuss,  Vhistoire  sainte  et  la  loi,  1879. 
These  views,  accepted  by  many  scholars,  as  Jiilieher  and 
Kayser,  have  been  popularised  in  Great  Britain  by  Professor 
W.  Eobertson  Smith's  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church, 
1881,  and  in  America  by  Professor  Toy,  of  Harvard,  and 
others.  On  the  other  side  Franz  Delitzsch,  Hoffmann, 
Bredenkamp,  C.  F.  Keil  (in  two  articles  in  Luthardt's 
Zeitschrift  for  1885),  have  come  forward  ;  as  well  as 
the  eminent  Roman  Catholic  scholar  G.  Bickell.  Of  import- 
ance is  V,  Ryssel's  work,  De  Elohistce  Pent,  sermone,  1878. 
Articles  by  scholars  on  both  sides,  but  chiefly  in  favour 
of  the  views  advocated  by  Wellhausen,  have  appeared  in 
Stade's  Zeitschrift  filr  die  Alt- Test.  Wissenschaft.  Most 
important  are  F.  E.  Konig's  Falsche  Extreme  (1885),  Haiijyt- 
jprolleme  (1884) — the  latter  work  sadly  misrepresented  in  an 
English  translation  (?)  entitled  Religion  of  Israel  (1885). 
Although  important  articles  have  been  written  on  the  subject 
by  English  scholars,  such  as  Dean  R.  Payne  Smith  in  his  tract 
on  the  Mosaic  Authorship  (R.T.S.),  Dean  Perowne  and 
others  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  1888,  and  by  Professor 
Driver,  on  the  Critical  Study  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the 
same  magazine  for  1890,  American  scholars  have  taken  up 
the  subject  more  warmly.  Of  importance  are  the  contributions 
of  S.  I.  Curtis's  Levitical  Priests,  1877  ;  his  De  Aaronitici 
Sacerdotii  atque  Thorce  elohisticce  origiJie,  1880 ;  and  in  the 
articles  in  Current  Discussions  in  Theology  by  Chicago  Pro- 
fessors (1885  ff.  onwards,  and  elsewhere)  ;  E.  C.  Bissell,  Pent. 
Origin  and  Structure,  1885  ;  W.  H.  Green,  Hehrem  Feasts, 
1886,  and  many  other  works  and  articles ;  C.  Briggs,  important 


102  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

articles  on  *'  Higher  Criticism  "  in  the  Preshyterian  Review, 
and  the  Avicrican  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  ;  Vos,  31osaie 
Origin  of  Pentatevch  Codes,  1886;  Essays  hy  American 
Scholars  on  Pentatevch  Criticism,  edited  by  T.  W  Chambers, 
reviewed  by  Delitzsch  in  Luthardt's  Zeitsehrifb  (1888),  and 
published  since  in  a  popular  work  entitled  Closes  and  Ms 
Recent  Critics,  New  York,  1889.  The  discussion  on  the 
whole  question,  carried  on  in  the  quarterly  Helraica,  1888- 
1890,  between  Professor  W.  K.  Harper,  of  Yale,  and  Professor 
W.  H.  Green,  of  Princeton,  and  not  yet  concluded,  is  the  most 
minute  and  important  which  has  yet  appeared.  Canon  Driver's 
article  on  the  Ci-itical  Study  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  the 
February  number  of  Contemporary  Revieio,  1890,  the  subse- 
quent article  by  Principal  Cave,  of  Hackney  College,  London, 
and  others  can  only  be  alluded  to  (see  Aj^p.^.  Consult  also 
K.  Finsler,  Darstelhmg  tmd  Kritik  dcr  Ansie/it  Wellhausen's 
von  Gesch.  v.  Religion  des  A.  T.,  1887,  reviewed  by  Baethgen 
in  Theol.  Literatvrzeitung,  1884,  No.  4,  and  C.  E.  JohaBsson, 
Den  hcliga  Shrift  och  den  negativa  Kritihen,  Upsala,  1886. 

10.  (a)  On  the  Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch  in  general  it 
must  be  noticed  that  much  valuable  matter  is  contained 
in  the  writings  of  Calvin  and  the  Commentary  in  the 
Critici  Sacri  (1695) ;  Henry  Ainsworth,  Annotations  on 
Pent.,  1627,  reprinted  1826,  1843  ;  Pfeiffer,  Diibia  Vex.,  1704; 
Clericus,  Comm.  i7i  Pent.,  1733  ;  Geddes,  Critical  Remarks, 
180O.  Also  in  the  Einleitungen  or  Introductums  to  Old 
Testament  of  De  V/ette,  7th  edit.  1852;  8th  edit,  by  Eb, 
vSchrader,  1869.  H.  A.  C.  Havernick,  see  p.  6  ;  2nd  edit,  by  C. 
F.  Keil,  1854,  1856.  The  volume  on  the  Pentateuch  in  English 
is  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark;  Home,  Introduction,  1818, 
1856,  Old  Testament,  revised  by  S.  Davidson  1860.  Blcek,  3rd 
edit,  by  Kamphausen,  4th  and  5th  by  Wellhausen,  see  p.  8  ; 
S.  Davidson  1862,  1863  ;  J.  J.  Stahelin,  1862,  Kr.  Untersuch- 
ungen,  1843.  Also  in  the  articles  in  Encyclop.  Brit. ;  Herzog- 
Plitt,  Encycl. ;  Eiehm's  Handirovterh.  ;  Smith's  BlMical  Bic- 
tio7iary,  etc.  ;  Baumgarten,  Thcol.  Covwi.,  1843-4.  Neteler,  B., 
Studien  iiber  die  Echtheit  des  Pent.,  2  Parts,  1867,  1871. 
Smith,   George,  CJhaldcean  Account  of  Genesis,  new  edition 


OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM.         103 

by  A.  H.  Sayce,  1881  ;  German  edit,  with  additions  by  Friedr. 
Delitzsch,  1876.  F.  Lenormant,  Les  origines  de  Vhistoire 
d'ajn'es  la  Bible  et  les  traditions,  1880.  J.  W.  Colenso,  Penta- 
teuch and  Booh  of  Joshua,  1862-1879 ;  Pentateuch  and 
3Ioahite  Stone,  1873  ;  The  Nexo  Bihle  Commentary  hy  Bishoj^s 
and  other  Clergy  critically  examined,  1874  ;  Yatke,  Hist,  lirit. 
Einl.,  published  after  his  death  by  Preiss,  1886  ;  Budde,  Bill. 
Urgvschichte,  1883.  The  Einl.  of  F.  H.  K.  Reusch,  4th  edit., 
1870;  Fr.  Kaulen,  2nd  edit.,  1884.  The  two  last  are  Roman 
Catholic  scholars.  De  Wette's  Beitrdge  appeared  in  1806, 
1807.  Th.  Noldeke's  JJntersuchungen  appeared  in  1869  ;  hw 
Alt.  Test.  Lit.  in  1868.  A.  Th.  Hartmann's  Forsehungen 
appeared  in  1831.  E.  W.  Hengstenberg's  Genuineness  of 
Pentateuch,  though  extreme,  is  still  of  use.  It  appeared  in 
1836,  1839 ;  English  translation  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark. 
H.Ewald's  Hist,  of  the  Peojjle  of  I.srael,STd  Germ,  edit.,  appeared 
1864-8.  It  has  been  translated  into  English  by  Professor 
Martineau  and  J.  F.  Smith,  Dean  Stanley's  Lectures  on  the 
Jewish  Church  generally  follow  Ewald.  Other  similar  works 
are:  Hitzig,  Gesch.  des  VolhesTsr.,!^^^  -,  Stade,  Gesch.  des 
Volhes  Israel,  1885,  1888  ;  E.  Kenan,  Hist,  du  peujjle  d'Israel. 
1887  (unfinished)  ;  R.  Kittel,  Gesch.  d.  Heh.,  1888  (unfinished)  ; 

A.  Kohler,  Lehrh.  d.  Uhl.  Gesch.,  i.  1875  ;  ii.  1, 1884  ;  il.  2, 188P, 
1890  (unfinished).  Graves'  Donnellan  Lectures,  1807,  and  G.  S. 
Faber's  Horce  Mosaiccs,  1818,  still  contain  matter  of  interest. 

B.  Riehm,  Alt-Test.  Theologie,  1889.  Of  great  importance  is 
Eb.  Schrader,  Keilinschrift.  u.  das  alt.  Test.,  2nd  edit.,  1883  ; 
translated  into  English,  with  additions,  by  Whitehouse,  under 
title,  Cuneiform  InscrijMons  end  the  Old  Testament :  Williams 
and  Norgate,  vol.  i.,  1885  ;  vol.  ii.,  1888  ;  and,  on  many  points, 
A.  Geiger,  Urschrift  u.  TJehersetzungen,  1857. 

(J)  Of  Commentaries  on  the  Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch, 
besides  those  named  already,  the  more  important  are  :  Rosen- 
miiller's  Scholia  in  Pent.,  1795-8;  still  useful.  J.  S.  Vater, 
1803-1805.  Maurer  (ob.  1874),  Comm..  gram.  crit.  in  V.  T., 
1835-1848.  C.  F.  Keil,  Genesis  and  Exodus,  3rd  edit.,  1878. 
Leviticus  to  Beuteronomy,  1870 ;  English  translation  of  earlier 
edition  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark.     A.  Knobel  on  Genesis 


104    HISTORY  OF  PENTATEUCH  CRITICISM 

to  Joshua  (1860  £f.).  Dillmann  on  Genesis  to  Joshua  ;  see 
under  special  books.  J.  P.  Lange,  Bihelwerh,  on  Genesis^ 
Exodns^  LeHtious,  Denteronoimj  (by  Schroeder) ;  translated 
in  English,  with  additions,  by  American  scholars ;  published 
by  T.  and  T.  Clark.  In  England,  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary ^ 
Bishop  Harold  Browne  has  written  on  Genesis  ;  Canon  Cook 
and  S.  Clark  on  Exodus  ;  T.  Espin  and  J.  F.  Thrupp  on 
jVumbe7's  to  Joshua.  In  Bishop  Ellicott's  Old  Testament 
Commentary,  1882,  Dr.  Payne  Smith  has  commented  on 
Genesis,  Professor  G.  Eawlinson  on  Exodus,  C.  D.  Ginsburg 
on  Leviticus,  E.  J.  Elliott  on  Numbers,  C.  H.  Waller  on 
Deuteronomy  to  Joshua.  In  the  Pulpit  Commentary  by  Spence 
and  Exell,  the  commentary  on  Genesis  is  by  W.  Whitelaw, 
on  Exodus  by  Professor  Rawlinson,  at  greater  length  than 
in  Bishop  Ellicott's  Commentary,  F.  Meyrick  has  written  on 
Levitic7(S,  R.  Winterbotham  on  JVumbers,  W.  L.  Alexander 
on  Deuteronomy,  J.  J.  Lias  on  Joshua,  1881.  Important  also 
are  :  Weill,  A.,  Le  Pentateuque  selon  Motse  et  le  Pent,  selon 
Ezra,  Paris,  1886.  J.  Kennedy,  The  Pentateuch:  its  Age  and 
Authorship,  with  an  examination  of  modern  theories,  1884. 
J.  P.  P.  Martin,  Introduction,  De  Vorigine  du  Pentateuque, 
Paris,  1889.  A.  Westphal,  Les  Sources  dii  Pentateuque 
(These  de  Montauban),  Touloust^,  1888.  R.  Kittel,  Gesch. 
des  HeVrder,  I.  Quellenkunde  u.  Gesch.  bis  zum  Tode  Josuas, 
18S8. 

(c)  The  following  are  of  importance,  though  not,  of  course, 
commentaries  : — R.  Buddensieg,  Die  Assyrisc/ie  Ausgrahungen 
u.  das  A,  T.,  1879  ;  Giesebrecht's  articles  on  Hexateuchhritih 
in  Stade's  Zeitschrift  for  1881 ;  Prof.  Sayce's  Fresh  Light 
from  the  Ancient  Momments,  1884  ;  E.  A.  W.  Budge,  The 
Dwellers  on  the  Nile,  1885.  G.  Rawlinson,  Moses:  Life  and 
Times,  1887.  W.  Robertson- Smith,  The  Religion  of  the  Semites, 
Fundamental  Institutions,  1889.  Briggs,  Biblical  Study  :  its 
Principles,  Methods,  and  History  (American),  1883.  Heniy 
A.  Harper,  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries  (from  the 
Palestine  Exploration  Fund),  1890. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

§  1.  Genesis. 

1.  ryiHE  name  of  Genesis  is  derived  from  the  old 
-L  Greek  version,  known  by  the  appellation 
of  the  LXX.,  in  which  the  book  is  termed  yeVecrts 
Koo-fjiov,  the  generation,  or  origin  of  the  world.  The 
book  is  designated  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  by  its  first 
word  n''^t51?.  Other  names  given  to  it,  or  to  parts, 
never  became  general,  such  as  '^y'^)  "i^P^  the  Book  of  the 
Creation  (the  title  also  of  a  famous  Kabbalistic  work), 
"l^i^n  l^p  the  Book  of  Jashar,  or  the  Booh  of  the 
Uj^right  (man),  or  in  the  plural  D''lt^*^^  'D  the  Book 
of  the  Upright  (men),  or  the  patriarchs. 

Genesis  falls  into  two  great  divisions.  Chapters 
i.-xi.  9  contain  the  account  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  and  the  primitive  history  of  mankind.  This 
portion  concludes  with  the  story  of  the  Deluge,  and 
the  account  of  the  scattering  abroad  of  the  human 
race.  These  histories  are  most  important  and  con- 
tain narratives  of  the  highest  antiquity. 

For  although  recent  discoveries  have  brought  to 
light  Babylonian  narratives  strikingly  similar  in 
form,  the  Hebrew  narratives  exhibit  proofs  of  a 
still  higher  antiquity.     For  example,  the  Babylonian 


106  THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

account  of  the  deluge  speaks  of  a  ship  (elippa), 
which  sailed,  and  was  managed  by  a  steersman. 
Such  a  statement  must  be  assigned  to  a  later  era 
than  the  account  in  Genesis,  in  which  mention  is 
made  only  of  a  floating  ark,  or  hulk,  entirely  devoid 
of  a  rudder,  and  not  designed  for  sailing  at  all. 

The  genealogy  of  Shem  in  chap.  xi.  10  fF., 
is  introductory  to  the  history  of  Abraham  which 
follows.  The  remaining  portion  of  the  book  is  com- 
posed of  the  narratives  of  the  three  great  patriarchs 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  or  Israel,  whose  histories, 
with  that  of  Joseph,  Jacob's  favourite  son,  are 
narrated  with  considerable  fulness  of  detail  down  to 
the  period  of  the  going  down  into  Egypt  and  the 
sojourn  there,  Avith  which  the  book  closes.  Genesis 
is  not  an  independent  book.  It  is  an  introduction  to 
the  history  of  Israel. 

2.  The  Book  of  Genesis  contains  distinct  traces  of* 
having  been  drawn  up  from  earlier  documents.  Modern 
critics  have,  however,  gone  too  far  in  the  use  of  "  the 
divining  rod,"  and  in  the  assumption  that  it  is  possible 
to  trace  its  component  fragments.  Though  the  com- 
posite character  of  the  work  may  be  admitted,  the 
marks  of  unity  of  design  and  of  general  harmony 
are  equally  striking.  Some  of  the  conclusions  of 
the  critics  rest  upon  premisses  absolutely  incapable 
of  proof. 

3.  The  following  may  afford  a  specimen  of  the 
manner  in  w^hich  the  documents  are  considered  to 
have  been  interlaced  with  one  another.  Gen.  i.,  ii., 
to  the  middle  of  ver.  4,  is  considered  to  have  belonged 
to  the  Priests'  Code,  (PC.  or  Q).    Chap,  ii.,  beginning 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  107 

with  the  last  clause  of  verse  4,  up  to  the  end  of 
chap,  iv.,  is  assigned  to  the  Second  Jehovist  (J^)  with 
a  few  insertions  by  the  Editor,  as  in  chap.  ii.  10-14, 
and  sinfile  words  here  and  there,  inckidinsj  the  addition 
of  Elohim  after  the  name  Jehovah  in  the  expression 
Jehovah  Elohim  ('Hhe  Lord  God").  The  Elder 
Jehovist  (Ji)  is  used  in  chap.  iv.  16^-24.  Chap.  v.  is 
from  the  Priests'  Code  up  to  ver.  32,  with  the 
exception  of  ver.  29,  which  verse  is  assigned  to  the 
Second  Jehovist  (J^).  Chap.  vi.  1-4  is  from  the 
Earlier  Jehovist  (J^),  verses  5-8  from  the  Second 
Jehovist  (J2),  with  traces  of  the  Editor's  hand  in  the 
middle  of  ver.  7.  Verses  9-22  are  from  the  Priests' 
Code  (PC  or  Q).  Cliap.  vii.  1-10  is  from  the 
Second  Jehovist,  ver.  6  being  interpolated  from  the 
Priests'  Code,  the  word  "  deluge  "  which  occurs  there 
being  inserted  by  the  Editor's  hand,  as  well  as  the 
words  "  male  and  female  "  and  the  name  "  God  "  in 
ver.  9.  The  original  name  for  the  Divine  Being  in 
that  verse  was  probably  *' Jehovah."  Verse  11  is 
assigned  to  PC,  ver.  12  to  the  Second  Jehovist,  ver. 
13-16  to  the  PC,  the  last  clause  of  ver.  16  being 
from  the  Jehovist.  Verse  17  is  a  compound  of  PC, 
Editor,  and  Second  Jehovist.  Verses  18-21  are  from 
the  PC;  ver.  22  from  the  Second  Jehovist;  ver.  23 
from  the  Second  Jehovist,  with  the  middle  clause 
from  the  Editor  himself,  while  ver.  24  is  derived  from 
the  Priests'  Code. 

4.  Among  the  most  important  commentaries  on  Genesis 
(besides  those  mentioned  pp.  105,  106),  are  those  by  Tuch 
{oh.  1867),  1838,  2nd  edit,  by  Merx  and  Arnold,  1871;  Schu- 
mann,   Ge7i.   Heh.   et  Greece,  1829;    Schroder,  1846;    M.  M. 


108  THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

Kalisch  (in  English),  1858  ;  Knobel,  1852,  1860  ;  Dillmann, 
1875, 1886  ;  Delitz&oh,  Neuer  Comm.,  1887,  English  translation 
by  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1888,  1889 ;  Gossrau,  G.  W.,  Com77i.  zur 
Genesis,  1887  ;  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  Gen.  in  Heh.  with  gramm. 
and  crit.  notes,  1859  ;  E.  Bohmer,  Liher  Genesis  PentatencJii- 
czis,  1860,  a  revised  Hebrew  text,  worthy  of  note  as  being  an 
attempt  to  point  out  the  various  documents  by  means  of  Hebrew 
types  of  different  sizes.     Bohmer's  Das  erste  Bucli  der  Thora, 

1862  ;  T.  J.  Conant  (American),  Genesis,  1868  ;  J.  Quarry, 
Genesis  and  its  antliorsMjp,  1866,  2nd  ed.,  1873  ;  H.  C.  Groves, 
Comm.  on  Genesis,  1861  ;  J.  G.  Murphy  (Professor  at  Belfast), 

1863  ;  T.  Whitelaw,  in  Puljnt  Comm.,  1880.  M.  Dods,  The  Book 
of  Genesis,  in  T.  and  T.  Clark's  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes, 
1885  ;  and  his  Commentary  in  Mvjjositor's  Bible,  1888.  Most 
important  for  students  of  Hebrew  is  G.  J.  Spurrell's  Notes  on 
the  Hebrew  Text  of  Genesis,  1887  ;  G.  Ebers'  work,  Aegyjiten  u. 
die  Bilcher  Mosis  (1868),  on  Genesis,  never  reached  a  second 
volume ;  P.  I.  Hershon,  Genesis  with  a  Talmndical  Commen- 
tary y  transl.  by  Wolkenberg,  1883  ;  also  his  English  transl.  of 

'^  Eabbi  Jacob's  Tzeenah  Ureenah  (1648),  under  the  title  of  a 
Jtabb.  Comiti.  on  Genesis,  1885;  G.  Rawlinson,  Moses,  his  Life 
and  Times.  Of  the  older  commentaries,  Calvin,  Comm.  in 
Gen.,  ed.  by  Hengstenberg,  1838  ;  J.  Gerhard,  1637  ;  Terser 
(Bishop  in  Linkoping,  Sweden),  Adnot.  in  Genesin,  1657. 
Important  articles  have  appeared  in  Stade's  Alt.  Testl.  Zeit- 
schrift ;  Luthardt's  Zeitsckrift ;  Harper's  Hebraica  ;  Harper's 
Old  and  New  Test.  Student ;  The  Expositor,  etc.  Especially 
interesting  is  Driver's  monograph  on  Shiloh  (Gen.  xlix.  10), 
in  Journal  of  Philology,  vol.  xiv. ;  J.  P.  Peters'  Jacob's  Blessing, 
in  American  Journal  of  Exeg.  Soc,  1886  ;  Friedr.  Delitzsch, 
Wo  lag  das  Paradies?  1881,  reviewed  and  summarised  in  my 
article  on  The  Site  of  Paradise  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for 
Oct.  1882.  Warren's  Paradise  Found,  Boston,  1885,  is  inge- 
nious, but  impossible.  P.  Haupt,  Der  heilinschriftliche 
Sintfluthbericht,  1881,  reviewed,  along  with  Haupt's  later 
contribution  to  Schrader's  Keilinschiften  u.  das  Alt.  Test. 
(see  p.  103),  in  my  article  on  the  Babyloiiian  Account  of  the 
Deluge  in  Nineteenth  Cejitury  for  Feb.  1882.     Moritz  Engel's 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  109 

Lomng  der  ParadieRfragCy  1885,  is  scarcely  more  successful 
than  Warren's.  Important  is  Genesis  mit  dusserer  Unter- 
scheidung  der  Quelle  nscliri  ft  en  iihers.  v.  Kautzsch  u.  Socin,  1888, 
2nd  ed.,  1891 ;  F.  Lenormant,  La  Gefiese,  1883,  Engl,  transl,, 
1886  ;  Aurivillii,  Dissert,  in  Gen.  xlix. ;  ed.  J.  H.  Michaelis, 
1790  ;  L.  Diestel  (Gen.  xlix.),  1853  ;  J.  P.  Land,  1858  ;  Papers 
on  the  Cosmogony  of  Genesis,  by  J.  D.  Dana,  and  S.  E.  Driver, 
in  the  Andover  Review  and  the  Bihliotlieca  Sacra  for  1887, 1888 ; 
and  A.  Kohut,  The  Zendavesta  and  the  First  Eleven  Chapters 
of  Genesis,  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review  for  1890  (April). 


§  2.  Exodus. 

1.  The  name  ExocTus  is  derived  through  the  Latin 
from  the  Greek  Version.  The  Hebrew  title  of  the 
book  iJ\\op  or  T^^'O^  ^V^\)  is  taken  from  its  opening 
words.  The  Greek  word,  Latinized  Exodus^  signifies 
*'  departure^^  and  occurs  in  Heb.  xi.  22,  in  allusion  to 
the  event  which  forms  the  main  subject  of  this  book. 
It,  or  portions,  have  occasionally  received  different 
names,  as  "  The  Second  Book  "  {Sota,  36  h),  The  Book 
of  Injuries  (rp''t^)  after  Exod.  xxi.,  xxii.  The  book 
divides  itself  naturally  into  two  parts.  I.  Chap,  i.-xviii. 
describe  (a)  the  oppression  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  the 
history  of  Moses,  his  mission  to  Pharaoh,  the  plagues 
sent  upon  Egypt,  i.-xii.  36 ;  (h)  the  exodus  from 
Egypt,  the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians,  and  Israel's 
arrival  at  Sinai  (chap,  xii,  37-xviii.).  II.  {a)  The 
encampment  before  Sinai  (chap,  xix.),  the  giving  of 
the  Law  (chap,  xx.-xxiv.).  (h)  The  directions  respect- 
ing the  Tabernacle,  with  its  priests  and  sacrifices 
(chap,  xxv.-xxxi.)  (c)  The  making  of  the  golden  calf, 
Israel's  punishment,  the  giving   of   the  new  tables 


110  THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

(chap,  xxxii.-xxxiv,).     {d)  The  erection  of  the  Taber- 
nacle and  its  dedication  (chap,  xxxv.-xl.). 

2.  The  four  documents,  as  well  as  the  hand  of  an 
editor,  can  be  also  traced  throughout  Exodus.  The 
variation  in  the  names  of  God,  which  is  a  notable 
mark  of  the  documents  in  Genesis,  disappears  after 
Exod.  vi.  2,  3.  After  that  narrative  the  name 
Jehovah  is  systematically  employed  by  the  Editor  as 
the  peculiar  name  of  God  assumed  in  relation  to  the 
covenant  with  Israel.  But  the  several  documents, 
though  lacking  that  peculiar  mark,  are  still  distinguish- 
able by  the  use  of  particular  words,  phrases,  etc.  The 
attempt,  however,  to  specify  each  document  too  nicely 
has  often  led  to  hyper-criticism. 

3.  Besides  the  commentaries  mentioned  in  chap.  xi.  10  J,  are 
the  English  com.mentaries  of  Kalisch,  185.5  ;  J.  G,  Murphy, 
1866;  the  additional  notes  in  the  English  translation  of  Lange, 
by  C.  M.  Mead,  the  American  scholar ;  G.  A.  Chadwick,  in 
JSsCjpositor's  BiMe,  1888  ;  G.  Eawlinson,  in  Pulpit  Commen- 
tary, 1882.  Important  matter  is  contained  in  Kohler's  Bibl. 
(jfescJi.,  1875  ;  Bertholdt,  Bfi  reins  a  Mas.  in  Egypt,  gest., 
1795  ;  Braunius,  Vest,  sacerd.  Heh.,  1698 ;  Birks,  Exodus  of 
Israel,  1863  ;  Palmer's  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  2  vols.,  1871  ; 
H.  Brugsch-Bey,  L'Exode  et  les  Monumeiits  Egyptiens,  1875; 
also  his  Gesch.  Agypt.  unter  den  Pliaraonen,  1877  ;  the  supple- 
mentary volume  to  Bunsen's  Bihelwerk,  1860  ;  F.  W.  Thayer, 
Hehren-s  and  the  Red  Sea,  1883  (Amer.) ;  J.  Baker  Greene, 
Uehrem  3Iigratiofi  from  Egypt,  3rd  edit.,  1883  ;  J.  P.  Peters 
The  Ten  TF(';'^5in  JourJi.  ofExeg.  Soo.  (Amer.),  1886  ;  G. Ebers, 
Biirch  Crosen nach Sl7iai,lS72,18Sl  ;  E. 'Nestle, Bte Ebitheilvfig 
des  Deltalogs,  1880  ;  A.  Edersheim,  The  Exodus  and  the  Wan- 
derings in  the  Wilderness, 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  Ill 

§  3.  Leviticus. 

1 .  The  name  given  to  this  book  is  a  Latinization  of  the 
Greek  title  (Aet;trtKo]/).  In  Hebrew  the  book  is  called 
^5'^P*1,  from  the  opening  word.  It  is  also  called  in  the 
Talmud  D^jqb  nnin  the  Law  of  the  Priests;  T\^^yrl  m_in 
the  Law  of  the  gifts,  or  offerings.  The  book  consists 
of  four  parts:  I.  The  laws  concerning  sacrifices  in 
general  (chap,  i.-vii.).  II.  The  consecration  of  Aaron 
and  his  four  sons,  with  the  punishment  of  the  two 
eldest  of  these,  Nadab  and  Abihu  (chap,  viii.-x.). 
III.  Lavv'S  concerning  {a)  the  clean  and  unclean  in 
food  (chap.  xi. ) ;  personal  uncleanness,  especially  cases 
of  leprosy  (chap,  xii.-xvi.).  (h)  The  Day  of  Atonement 
(chap.  xvi.).  lY.  {a)  Laws  concerning  purity  in 
various  forms,  including  chastity,  precepts  partly 
moral  and  partly  ceremonial  (chap,  xvii.-xix.).  Punish- 
ments for  idolatry  and  unchastity  (chap.  xx.).  Ordi- 
nances as  to  the  persons  and  ministrations  of  the 
priests,  and  concerning  sacrifices  (chap,  xxi.,  xxii.). 
(5)  Laws  concerning  the  festivals  (chap,  xxiii.);  the 
lights  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  shewbread  (chap. 
xxiv.  1-10).  The  history  of  a  blasphemer  and  his 
punishment  (chap.  xxiv.  10-23).  The  Sabbatic  year, 
and  the  Jubilee  (chap.  xxv.).  A  chapter  of  blessings 
and  cursings  (chap,  xxvi.),  closing  with  a  kind  of 
appendix  containing  laws  about  vows,  tithes,  and 
things  devoted  to  Jehovah  (chap,  xxvii.). 

2.  The  book  is  considered  in  the  main  to  have  been 
taken  from  the  Priests'  Code,  to  which  chap,  i.-xvi. 
with  chap.  xxvi.  are  generally  assigned.  There  is 
much  which  appears  fragmentary,  and  which  favours 


112  THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

the  idea  that  the  code  of  laws  here  given  was  added 
to  from  time  to  time  when  deemed  necessary.  The 
book  presents  pecuHar  difficulties  in  several  of  its 
details ;  but  such  facts  are  in  themselves  evidences  of 
its  great  antiquity.  As  a  product  of  the  time  after 
the  exile  it  would  be  a  gross  anachronism.  Its  im- 
portance in  relation  to  the  New  Testament  doctrine 
cannot  be  too  highly  estimated;  but  the  details  of 
the  sacrifices  have  often  been  arbitrarily  explained  as 
setting  forth  New  Testament  doctrines.  The  writings 
of  the  priest-prophet  Ezekiel  necessarily  contain 
numerous  references  to  the  legislation  of  the  book 
of  Leviticus. 

3.  The  leading  commentaries  on  Leviticus  have  been  already 
mentioned  (see  pp.  103,  104).  Kalisch's  Commentary^  vol.  i., 
1867,  vol.  ii.,  1872,  is  important  from  a  critical  point  of  view. 
Commentaries  like  those  of  H.  Bonar,  1846,  do  not  face 
critical  difficulties.  There  are  many  monographs  of  im- 
portance, such  as :  Benzinger,  Der  grosse  Versohnujigstag, 
Lev.  xvi.,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  A.  T.  Wissensclmft,  1889  ;  Klos- 
termann,  Ueher  die  Kalendarisclie  Bedevtung  des  Joheljahrs 
(in  the  Stud.  n.  Kritik.,  1880)  ;  J.  J.  Stahelin,  Gescli.  des 
Stamtnes  Levi  (in  Zeitschrift  d.  B.  M.  G.,  1855)  ;  Graf,  id. 
(in  Merx,  Archiv,  1869);  Kiiper,  das  Priesterthvm  des  Alt  _ 
Biind^  1865.  S.  H,  Kellogg  is  the  writer  on  Leviticus  in  the 
Expositor's  Bible,  1891.  S.  I.  Curtiss'  works,  Be  Aaron, 
sacerd.  orig.,  1878,  and  his  Levitical  Priests,  1877,  are  of 
special  importance.  H.  L.  Strack's  Conim.  on  Genesis  to 
Leviticus  is  promised  in  1891. 

§  4.  Numbers. 

1.  The  name  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  'l?']^?,  "  In 
the  Wilderness,''  from  the  fifth  word  of  chap.  i.  1.  It 
is,   however,    also   designated   from   its   initial   word 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  113 

"•?1!1.  The  appellation  Numbers  is  a  translation  of 
'Apt^/xot  in  the  LXX.,  adopted  also  by  the  Yulgate.  In 
the  Babl.  Talmud  {Sota,  36  h)  it  is  called  Dnpp^n  -)2p, 
or  DH-lpan  t^^in,  which  are  of  similar  import.  Each 
book  of  the  Pentateuch  is  termed  tJ^^in  or  E^'»-in, 
a  fifth.  The  Book  of  Numbers  is  so  called  because 
it  contains  the  accounts  of  two  iiumherings  of  the 
people;  the  first  made  in  the  second  year  of  the 
Exodus,  the  second  in  the  fortieth.  The  book  is  most 
suitably  divided  into  four  parts.  I.  The  first  portion 
contains  chiefly  the  census  (chap,  i.-iv.);  laws  about 
purity,  and  about  the  Nazarites,  concluding  with  the 
priestly  blessing  (chap,  v.,  vi.) ;  the  ofierings  of  the 
princes  at  the  dedication  of  the  altar  (chap,  vii.) ;  the 
purification  of  the  Levites  (chap,  viii.);  the  law  of  the 
supplementary  passover  (chap,  ix.);  the  cloudy  pillar, 
and  the  directions  as  to  the  times  and  manner  of 
journeying  (chap.  ix.  15-x.).  II.  The  second  portion 
comprises  the  history  of  the  journeyings  of  Israel,  in- 
cluding the  surveying  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  people's 
refusal  to  enter  the  land,  the  march  back  to  the  wilder- 
ness, and  various  rebellions,  inclusive  of  that  of  Korah, 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  which  formed  the  leading  events 
in  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  second  year  to  the 
beginning  of  the  fortieth.  Divers  laws  given  during 
this  period  are  set  forth  in  this  part  of  the  book,  which 
includes  chap,  xi.-xix.  III.  The  third  part  relates  the 
events  of  the  first  ten  months  of  the  fortieth  year, 
the  toilsome  march  round  Edom,  the  death  of  Aaron 
(chap.  XX.) ;  the  conquest  of  the  land  of  the  Amorites 
and  of  Bashan  (chap,  xxi.) ;  the  episode  of  Balaam 
(chap,  xxii.-xxiv.).    lY.  The  foui^th  and  last  comprises 

8 


lU  TEE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

the  account  of  the  sin  of  Baal-peor  (chap,  xxv.) ;  the 
second  census  (chap,  xxvi.);  laws  about  inheritance 
(chap,  xxvii.  1-11  and  xxxvi.  1-12);  laws  of  offerings 
and  vows  (chap,  xxviii.-xxx.) ;  the  vengeance  taken 
on  the  Midianites,  and  the  laws  concerning  spoil 
(chap,  xxxi.) ;  the  settlement  of  Israel  on  the  country 
east  of  Jordan,  and  the  laws  of  the  cities  of  refuge 
(chap,  xxxii.-xxxv.).  The  closing  chapter  (chap,  xxxvi.) 
is  supplementary. 

2.  The  Book  of  Numbers  is  considered  to  have  been 
chiefly  composed  of  the  Priests'  Code,  with  large 
additions,  however,  from  the  work  of  the  Jehovist 
or  prophetic  narrator,  especially  the  sections  about 
Balaam  (chap,  xxii.-xxiv.).  All  the  four  documents 
are  fairly  considered  to  be  discoverable  in  the  book, 
but  there  are  wide  differences  of  opinion  as  to 
details. 

3.  The  best  commentaries  have  been  named  in  the  fore- 
going sections.  The  Sj)ecike7''s  Commentary  is  of  interest  (see 
p.  104),  and  Dillmann's  Commentary  on  Numhers  to  Joshua, 
1886,  deserves  special  attention.  Monographs  on  portions  of 
the  book  :  on  Balaam  and  his  Prophecies^  by  E.  W.  Hengsten- 
berg,  1842,  Enghsh  translation  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark  ; 
by  H.  Oort,  1860 ;  Kriiger,  Les  oracles  de  Balaam.,  1873  ; 
M.  M.  Kalisch,  Bille  Studies,  Part  i.,  Prophecies  of  Balaam, 
1877.     See  Kohler's  v^ork,  noticed  at  p.  103. 


§  5.     Deuteronomy. 

1.  The  name  Deuteronomy  ("  Second  Law ")  is 
derived  from  the  incorrect  rendering  given  in  the 
LXX,,  chap.  xvii.   18,  to  Sevrepovofxiov  tovto.^  for  the 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH.  115 

phrase  correctly  translated  in  the  A.V.,  "  a  copy  of  the 
law,"  but  which  was  incorrectly  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  whole  book  itself.  The  Hebrew  name  (Dni'^n  np« 
or  Q''"15'7)  is  taken  from  the  second  word  in  chap.  i.  1., 
viz.  "  words,"  or  from  the  two  opening,  "  these  are  the 
words."  The  name  Aewepovo/Aioj/  occurs  in  the  Ep. 
of  Barnabas  x.,  and  in  Hippolytus  as  used  by  Simon 
Magus  {Hcer.,  vi,  15, 16).  In  theMassorah  the  Hebrew- 
name  nnin  ry^^ip,  or  nninn  np.f  p,  from  Deut.  xvii.  18, 
is  also  assigned  as  the  name  of  the  book.  The  book 
consists  mainly  of  addresses  of  Moses  to  the  people. 
I.  A  rehearsal  of  the  history  of  Israel  from  Horeb  to  the 
Jordan  (chap,  i.-iv.  40),  closing  with  a  supplementary 
recital  (ver.  41-49).  II.  A  second  address  commenc- 
ing with  a  recital  of  the  Decalogue,  and  followed  by 
exhortations  grounded  thereon  (chap,  v.-xxvi.).  The 
second  portion  of  this  address,  from  chap,  xii.-xxvi.  15, 
is  not  likely  to  have  actually  formed  part  of  the 
speech  delivered,  but  was  added  afterwards  in  writ- 
ing. III.  The  opening  portion  of  the  third  address 
(chap,  xxvii.)  seems  likewise  not  to  have  been  spoken, 
but  written  down;  chap,  xxviii.,  however,  looks  like 
the  peroration  of  a  great  prophecy.  IV.  Chap,  xxix., 
XXX.  formed  portions  of  another  prophetic  address; 
chap.  xxxi.  contains  Moses'  charge  to  Joshua.  Y.  The 
book  closes  with  a  description  of  Moses'  last  days,  into 
which  the  Song  of  Moses  (chap,  xxxii.)  and  his 
Blessing  of  the  tribes  (chap,  xxxiii.)  are  embedded. 

2.  The  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  evidently  intended 
for  the  people,  and  not  for  the  use  of  the  priests 
alone.  New  laws  are  laid  down,  old  laws  are  abro- 
gated.    Compare  the  law  of   the  one  sanctuary  as 


116  THE  SEVERAL  BOOKS 

compared  with  the  earher  legislation  (chap.  xii.  5-14 ; 
comp.  Exod.  XX.  24).  The  usage  mentioned  in  Exod. 
xxiv.  5  was  afterwards  abrogated  by  the  directions 
given  concerning  the  priests  and  Levites.  Changes 
are  introduced  even  into  the  Decalogue  (chap.  v.  15, 
21).  It  is  incorrect  to  say  that  the  law  of  the  one 
sanctuary  was  unknown  till  Hezekiah's  time,  for  it 
underlies  all  the  arrangements  as  to  the  Temple  made 
by  David  and  Solomon.  2  Kings  xxii.  records  the 
discovery  of  this  book  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  the 
sacred  books  having  been,  no  doubt,  generally  destroyed 
dui^ing  the  persecution  in  the  days  of  Manasseh.  The 
theory  that  the  book  itself  was  first  wi-itten  at  that 
period  is  now  abandoned  by  the  best  critics.  It  is  a 
matter  of  great  doubt  as  to  when  Deuteronomy 
received  its  final  shape.  It  is  probable  that  it  was 
added  to  throughout  in  later  times.  But,  as  a 
whole,  it  bears  marks  of  unity  of  composition,  ex- 
clusive, of  course,  of  the  two  poems  at  the  close  of  the 
work. 

3.  In  addition  to  the  works  aheady  mentioned,  pp.  103,  104, 
see  Ed.  Eiehm,  Die  Gesetzgehung  Mosis  imLande  Moah,  1854:. 
F.  W.  Schulz,  Das  Dent,  erld.,  1879,  is  a  work  of  over  700  pp. 
The  defence  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  has  been  abandoned  by 
him  in  Die  SchdjjfungsgescMchte,  etc.,  1865.  P.  Kleinert,  Das 
D enter onomium  u.  der  Deuteronoinilier,  1872.  Ad.  Zahn,  Das 
Deuteronomium  ;  eine  Sclmtzschrift  wider  Modern-Kritisches 
UnweseUy  1890.  Of  the  older  writers  most  important  are  : 
Lorinus,  Comm.,  1625,  1628;  Masius,  in  CHt.  Sacri;  Alting, 
Ojiera,  tom.  i.  ;  Vitringa,  Comm.  ad  Cant.  Mosis,  1734  ;  anH  on 
the  latter  song  (Deut.  xxxii.)  :  J.  A.  Dathe,  Oj)usc.,  ed.  Kosen- 
miiller,  1796.  More  modern  monographs  on  Deut.  xxxii., 
are  those  of  W.  Volck,  1861  ;  Kamphausen,  1862 ;  A. 
Klostermanu,  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1871,  1872  ;  Flockner,  1876; 


OF  THE  PENTATEUCH,  117 

and  on  Deut.  xxxiii.,  K.  H.  Graf.,  Ber  Segen  Mosis,  1857  ; 
W.  Volck,  1873.  The  connection  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  Prophets  is  discussed  among  other  works  in  C.  J. 
Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  und  Propheten,  1881 ;  Marti,  Die  Sjmren 
d.  sogen.  Gnindschrift  d.  Hex.  in  den  vorexil.  Proph.  (Jahrh. 
f.  Prot.  Theol.,  vi.,  1880)  ;  F.  E.  Konig,  Per  Offenlariingsbegrij^ 
des  alt.  Test.  (2  vols.),  1882,  etc. 


irp 


CHAPTEK  XIII. 

THE    HISTORICAL    BOOKS, 

§  1.     The  Book  of  Joshua. 

HE  name  of  Joshua  was  originally  1^^'in 
Hoshea,  ^^ salvation"  {^vim.  xiii.  8,  6),  a  name 
borne  by  the  last  king  of  Israel  (2  Kings  xv.  30), 
and  by  the  prophet  of  the  northern  kingdom,  though 
variously  transliterated  in  our  A.Y.  That  name 
was  afterwards  changed  to  VJ^^^]  (twice  written  plene 
y-1t^tn^,  Deut.  iii.  21  ;  Judges  ii.  7),  which  signifies 
Jahaveh  is  salvatio7i,  or  Jahaveh  saves.  Comp.  V-l^*  v^, 
the  name  of  one  of  David's  sons  (2  Sam.  v.  15),  akin 
to  y^V^.,  the  name  of  the  great  prophet  Eiisha.  The 
latter  form,  ^^fH),  is  written  by  the  LXX.  and  in  later 
Greek  'lyycrovs  (Acts  vii.  45  ;   Heb.  iv.  8). 

The  Book  of  Joshua  is  the  concluding  portion  of 
the  Hexateuch.  In  the  Hebrew  canon  it  is  the  first 
cf  those  books  grouped  together  under  the  designation 
of  the  "  former  prophets "  (d^JVl^^SI  D^N^n^).  The 
historical  books  from  Joshua  to  2  Kings  are  embraced 
under  that  title,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
Book  of  Euth. 

2.  The  Book  of  Joshua  may  be  divided  into  three 
parts.  I.  Chap,  i.-xii.  give  an  account  of  the  con- 
quest of  Canaan.     II.  Chap,  xiii.-xxii.  describe  the 


THJ^  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA.  119 

division  of  the  land  among  the  tribes.  III.  The  two 
closing  chapters  (xxiii.  and  xxiv.)  contain  the  last 
speeches  of  Joshua,  and  an  account  of  the  deaths  of 
Joshua  and  Eleazar. 

3.  The  Book  of  Joshua  is  so  called  after  the  name 
of  the  great  captain  whose  exploits  it  records.  It 
does  not  profess,  however,  to  have  been  written  by 
him,  although  ascribed  to  him  by  Jewish  and  Christian 
commentators  prior  to  the  rise  of  the  modern  school  of 
Biblical  criticism.  Internal  evidence  is  opposed  to  the 
opinion  of  the  older  authorities.  No  conclusion  as  to 
the  late  date  of  the  book  can,  however,  be  drawn  from 
its  language,  although  that  line  of  argument  was  at 
one  time  adopted  by  critics.  But  the  book  records 
events  which  occurred  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  such 
as  the  capture  of  Hebron  by  Caleb,  and  of  Kiriath 
Sepher  by  Othniel  (comp.  Josh.  xv.  13-17  with 
Judges  i.  9-13).  Several  facts  mentioned  in  the  book 
show  that  it  must  have  been  written  very  early.  Ai, 
or  Aiath,  was  in  ruins  at  the  time  of  the  writer  (chap, 
viii.  28),  although  in  existence  as  a  town  in  the  days 
of  Hezekiah.  The  story  of  the  Gibeonites  must  have 
been  earlier  than  the  attempt  made  to  root  them  out 
by  Saul  (Josh.  ix.  27).  The  reference  to  the  Jebusites 
in  Jerusalem  (chap.  xv.  63)  appears  earlier  than  the 
time  of  David.  The  statement  that  the  Canaanites 
dwelt  in.  Gezer  (chap.  xvi.  10)  must  also  have  been 
earlier  than  the  conquest  of  Gezer  in  the  days  of 
Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  16).  These  facts  are  in  favour 
of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  entire  Hexateuch.  If  the 
Hexateuch  concluded  with  Joshua,  its  composition 
must  have  been  long  prior  to  the  Exile.     The  Book 


120  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

of  Joshua  is  seldom  assigned  to  a  later  date  than 
the  days  of  Jeremiah.  But  it  is  hard  on  any  fair 
line  of  argumentation  to  defend  the  composition  of 
such  a  book  at  that  period. 

3.  The  documents  used  in  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  have  been  traced  also  in  the  Book  of 
Joshua.  In  the  first  part  of  the  book  the  Jehovist 
is  conspicuous;  in  the  afterparts  the  Priests'  Code, 
and  even  the  Deuteronomist.  Other  documents  were 
also  made  use  of.  The  Book  of  Jashar  is  referred  to 
in  chap.  x.  13.  There  are  difficulties  in  connection 
with  several  of  the  statements  in  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
but  the  difficulties  have  often  been  exaggerated.  The 
expulsion  of  the  Canaanites  and  the  conquest  of  the 
land  by  Israel  are  often  referred  to  in  the  later  books. 
The  miracles  narrated  in  the  book  have  also  been 
often  grossly  exaggerated.  Orthodox  scholars,  like  Dr. 
E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  have  long  ago  pointed  out  that, 
although  the  victory  gained  at  Gibeon  (chap,  x.)  was 
brought  about  by  supernatural  causes,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  assert  as  an  historical  fact  that  the  sun  or  the 
moon  stood  still  on  that  occasion. 

4.  Among  the  special  commentaries  on  Joshua  may  be 
named  the  work  of  Masius,  a  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  1674, 
still  in  high  repute  ;  that  of  J.  Clericus  in  Comm.  in  Lihh.  Hut., 
1708;  Osiander,  1681;  Corn,  a  Lapide  (Roman  Catholic), 
Josh.-2  Paral.  1642;  C.  a  Lapide  was  an  able  expositor, 
and  wrote  commentaries  on  nearly  all  the  books  of  the 
Bible.  Maurer,  Comm.  ilher  Jimia,  1831  ;  RosemTaiiller, 
Scholia,  1833  ;  Keil,  1847  (Joshua,  Michter,  und  Rvth), 
1863  :  English  translation  publ.  by  T.  and  T.  Clark. 
Knobel  (^Numl.-Josh.'),  1861  ;  Dillmann  {Mi mh. -Josh.'),  1886  ; 
Himpel  on  the  unity  and  credibility  of  book,  in  Tilh.  Theol. 
Qvartalschr.,  1864  ;  Hollenberg,  die  deut.  Bestandtheile  in 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA.  121 

Stud.  u.  Kr.,  1874  (see  other  Commentaries  on  Hex.  noted 
in  chap,  xi.)  ;  G.  F.  Maclear,  1883,  in  Cambridge  Bible  ;  J. 
Lloyd,  Booh  of  Joslma,  Crit.  and  Expos.  Cormn.,  1886,  useful 
for  students,  but  not  up  to  date  ;  J.  J.  Lias  has  written  on 
the  book  in  the  Pulpit  Commentary,  1881,  and  Canon  Espin 
in  the  Speaker's  Commeniarij .  The  Booli  of  Joshua  by  Rev. 
Principal  Douglas,  D.D.  (T.  and  T.  Clark),  1890  ;  T.  J.  Conant, 
Hist.  Boolis  of  the  Old  Test.  (Joshua  to  2  Kings) ;  IntroduG- 
tions,  common  version  revised,  and  occasional  Notes,  New 
York,  1884.     See  Appendix. 

5.  The  Samaritans  possess  among  writings  peculiar 
to  them  a  Book  of  Joshua,  attention  to  which  was 
first  called  by  Scaliger.  The  MS.  of  this  work,  which 
he  brought  to  Europe,  is  in  the  University  Library 
at  Leyden.  The  work  has  been  edited  by  JuynboU, 
under  the  name  Chronicon  Samaritanum,  1848.  It 
is  in  Arabic,  written  in  the  Samaritan  character,  and 
contains  an  epitome  of  Israelitish  history  during  the 
last  days  of  Moses.  Its  opening  chapters  correspond 
with  Num.  xxii.-xxxii.  Next  follows  the  Book  of 
Joshua  according  to  the  Hebrew,  with,  however, 
several  additions  and  legends.  According  to  these 
Samaritan  additions,  Joshua  built  the  temple  on 
Mount  Gerizzim.  The  work  is  post-Christian  in  date, 
for  it  contains  in  its  closing  portion  a  history  of  the 
Samaritans  to  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Alexander 
Severus.  There  is,  also,  another  work  of  the  Sama- 
ritans, entitled.  The  Book  of  Joshua,  composed  by 
Abulfatch,  in  the  year  of  the  Hejira  756.  The  latter 
work,  which  is  of  no  historical  value,  has  been  edited 
by  Yilmar,  with  a  Latin  translation  and  commentary, 
1865,  and  is  interesting  from  the  Samaritan  history 
it  contains. 


122  THE  HISTORICAL   BOOKS- 

§  2.  The  Book  of  Judges, 

1.  The  Book  of  tlie  Judges,  CP^'^^,  Kptrat  (comp.  Acts 
xiii.  20),  receives  its  name  from  the  heroes  who  "judged 
Israel."  These  were  noted  for  their  martial  prowess 
in  repelling  the  assaults  made  either  by  various  nations 
in  the  proximity  of  Canaan,  who  sought  to  enslave 
the  new  settlers  in  that  land,  or  by  the  aboriginal  popu- 
lations, who  were  but  partially  subdued,  and  possessed 
still  many  portions  of  the  country.  The  Hebrew 
"Judges"  administered  justice  in  times  of  peace,  and 
acted  as  generals  in  time  of  war.  They  were,  there- 
fore, akin  to  the  Suffetes,  who,  after  the  overthrow 
of  royalty  in  Tyre,  acted  as  rulers  there,  as  also  in 
Carthage  {Liv.  Hist,,  xxx.  7).  The  title  is  identical. 
The  Suffetes  at  Carthage  were  sometimes  styled  by 
the  Homans  reges,  consules,  and  dictators. 

2.  The  Book  of  Judges  is  composed  of  three  parts  : 
I.  The  fii'st  portion  (chap,  i.-ii.  5)  is  introductory, 
describes  the  conquest  of  certain  parts  of  the  land, 
and  gives  a  list  of  the  cities  which  had  not  yet  come 
into  the  possession  of  the  Israelites.  It  is  open 
to  serious  question  whether  the  rebuke  of  Israel  at 
Bochim  was  administered  by  a  prophet  or  by  an  angel. 
The  Hebrew  phrase,  Hini'liJ^^Dj  messenger,  or  angel  of 
Jehovah,  is  ambiguous ;  but  the  expression  "  came 
up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim  "  coincides  better  with  the 
former  explanation..  II.  The  second  portion  of  the 
book  consists  of  chap.  ii.  6  to  xvi.  inclusive.  This* 
part  is  closely  connected  with  Josh.  xxiv.  28.  It 
records  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  death  of  Joshua 
to  that  of  Samson,  and  also  commences  with  an  intro- 


THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES.  123 

duction  in  prophetic  style  (chap.  ii.  16-iii.  6),  after 
•which  follow  sketches  of  twelve  or  fifteen  Judges,  of 
the  greater  number  of  whom  very  little  account  is 
given.  (1)  Otliniel  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  chap.  iii. 
7-11.  (2)  Ehud  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  chap, 
iii.  12ff.  (3)  Shamgar,  chap.  iii.  31.  (4  and  5) 
Deborah  of  Ephraim  and  Barak  of  Naphtali,  chap, 
iv.,  V.  (6)  Gideon  of  Manasseh,  chap,  vi.-viii.  (7) 
Ahimelech,^oia.  of  Gideon's  maid- servant;  a  petty  king, 
not  probably  one  of  the  Judges,  chap.  ix..  (8)  Tola 
of  Issachar,  chap.  x.  1,  2.  (9)  Jair  of  Gilead,  chap. 
X.  3,  4.  (10)  Jephthah  of  Gilead,  chap,  xi.,  xii. 
(11)  Ihzan  of  Bethlehem,  chap.  xii.  8.  (12)  Elon  of 
Zebulon,  chap.  xii.  11,  12.  (13)  Ahdon  of  Ephraim, 
chap.  xii.  13-15.  (14)  Sainson  of  Dan,  chap,  xiii.- 
xvi.  By  the  omission  of  the  names  of  Deborah  and 
Abimelech,  the  total  number  has  often  been  reduced 
to  twelve.  No  weight,  however,  is  assigned  to  the 
number  twelve  in  the  book,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  name  of  Shamgar  be  not  an  interpolation.  Bedariy 
who  is  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  xii.  11,  is  either  to  be 
identified  with  Barak  (which  is  the  reading  found  in 
that  passage  in  the  LXX.  and  Syr.),  or  possibly  may 
be  the  same  as  Ahdon.  It  is  a  matter  of  uncertainty 
whether  the  rule  of  the  Judges  mentioned  in  the  book 
was  consecutive  or  contemporaneous,  and  the  book 
does  not  afford  data  enough  for  the  solution  of  the 
question.  III.  The  third  portion  of  the  book  (chap, 
xvii.-xxi.)  contains  two  remarkable  narratives,  {a) 
The  first  recounts  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the 
image  worship  set  up  at  Dan,  chap,  xvii.,  xviii. ; 
and  ip)  the   second  tells   of   the  "  deed   of  shame " 


124  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

performed  at  Gibeah,  and  the  subsequent  "holy  war" 
against  Benjamin,  chap,  xix.-xxi.  The  events  re- 
corded in  the  former  must  have  occurred  at  a  very- 
early  period,  prior  to  the  narratives  recorded  after 
chap.  iii.  12.  See  chap,  xviii.  1,  although  if  this  be 
correct,  chap,  xviii.  31  contains  a  later  gloss.  The 
second  narrative  must  also  be  assigned  to  a  very  early 
period,  according  to  chap.  xx.  28. 

3.  The  Book  of  Judges,  though  probably  put  together 
by  a  single  editor,  contains  histories  proceeding  from 
different  authors.  The  opening  words,  *'  and  it  came 
to  pass  after  the  death  of  Joshua,"  may  be  a  later 
addition,  inserted  in  order  to  unite  the  book  with  the 
preceding  Book  of  Joshua.  The  Song  of  Deborah  and 
Barak  affords  abundant  proof  of  having  been  com- 
posed shortly  after  the  date  of  the  event  celebrated. 
It  has  been  conjectured  that  the  Book  of  Judges 
originally  contained  the  history  of  Eli  and  Samuel. 
The  date  of  the  composition  of  the  work  is  uncertain, 
for  the  reference  in  chap,  xviii.  30  to  "the  captivity 
of  the  land"  may  be  a  later  gloss,  or  may  contain 
a  faulty  reading.  "  The  captivity  of  the  land  "  must 
mean  the  Assyrian  captivity,  and  hence  if  those  words 
be  genuine  the  work  must  have  been  composed  after 
that  period.  But  the  thorough  knowledge  shown  of  the 
topography  of  Palestine  is  sufficient  to  prove  the  book 
to  have  been  written  by  an  inhabitant  of  the  country, 
and  therefore  it  cannot  well  have  been  composed 
during  the  Babylonian  Exile.  Several  of  the  events 
recorded  in  the  book  are  alluded  to  in  Psalms  Ixxviii. 
and  Ixxxiii.  The  "  iniquity  of  Gibeah  "  is  referred  to 
in  Hosea  ix.  9,  x.  9. 


THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES.  125 

4.  The  commentaries  on  Judges  are  numerous.  Among  the 
most  important  are  those  of  Clericus ;  Drusius,  1586  ;  Schmidt, 
1684 ;  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia,  1835  ;  Gr.  L.  Studer,  Das  Buch 
der  RicUer,  1835  j  2nd  edit.,  1842  ;  E.  Bertheau,  Richtei-, 
u.  Ruth,  1845  ;  2nd  edit.,  1883  ;  Paulus  Cassel,  in  Lange's 
Ribelwerh  1865,  2nd  edit.,  1887  ;  Bachmann,  Richter,  I.  i.-v. 
1868,  1869.  Keil  (see  pp.  6,  7)  ;  H.  Ewald  (see  p.  7),  and 
A.  Kohler  (p.  103),  in  their  historical  works ;  as  well  as  S. 
Davidson,  Stahelin,  Bleek,  Wellhausen,  in  their  IntroductioJis 
(p.  8) ;  also  the  latter  in  his  Gesch.  Israel,  i.,  1878.  E.  Eenss, 
Gesch.  d.  heilig.  Schrlften,  1889;  see  on  the  book  Oehler, 
Theologie  des  A.  T.,  2nd  edit.,  1882  ;  English  transl.  by  T.  and 
T.  Clark.  Wahl,  Ueher  den  Verf.  des  B.  der  Richter,  1859  ; 
K.  A.  Auberlen  in  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1860  ;  J.  J.  Inas,  Booh  of 
Judges,  in  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools,  1890.  G.  C.  M. 
Douglas,  The  Book  of  Judges,  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1881.  R.  A. 
Watson,  Judges  and  Ruth  in  Expositor's  Bible.  Lord  A.  C. 
Hervey  (Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells)  has  written  on  Judges  in 
Pidjnt  Commentary,  1881  ;  and  also  in  the  SjJeaher's  Com- 
mentary, 1872.  T.  Skat  Rordam,  Lilyri  Judicum  et  Ruth,  sec. 
vers.  Syr.-Hexaplarem,  1861,  is  useful ;  also  K.  Budde,  Die 
Bilcher  Richter  u  Samuel,  ihr  Quellen  und  ihr  Aufhau,  1890; 
A.  Kohler,  Lehrh.  d.  BiU.  Gesch.  ii.,  pp.  21-121,  1884. 

The  Song  of  Deborah  has  produced  a  large  number  of 
monographs.  Among  the  most  important  are  Schnurrer, 
JDissert.  2Jiilol.  criticcs,  1790  ;  Hollmann,  1818  ;  Kalkar,  1833  ; 
H.  H.  Kemink,  1840  ;  v.  Gumpach,  Alt.  Test.  Studien,  1852  ; 
E.  Meier,  1859;  Dr.  J.  W.  Donaldson,  Booh  of  Jashar,  2nd 
ed.,  1860  ;  Bottcher,  Ber  B  eh  or  a- Ge  sang  u.  das  Hohelied,  1850 ; 
H.  Ewald,  Bie  Bichter  d.  alt.  Bundes,  I.,  1866  ;  Hilliger, 
1867;  Aug.  Miiller,  1887.  On  other  points,  see  K.  Budde,  on 
Richter  tind  Josua  in  Zeitschrift  filr  die  A.  T.  Wisse?ischaft 
for  1887,  and  Stade  himself  in  the  same  for  1881.  Also  by 
Budde,  Bie  Anhdnge  des  Richterhuches  in  the  same  Zeitschrift 
for  1888  ;  W.  Bohme,  Bie  dlteste  Barstellung  in  Richt.  vi. 
11-24  U7id  xiii.  2-24,  in  same  Zeitschrift  for  1885.  S.  R. 
Driver,  Origin  and  Structure  of  the  Booh  of  Judges,  in  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review  for  April  1889. 


126  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

§  3.  The  Book  of  Ruth. 

1.  The  Book  of  Ruth  (nn,  'VovO)  in  the  Hebrew 
canon  does  not  immediately  follow  the  Book  of  Judges, 
but  is  one  of  the  five  Megilloth  or  "  Bolls,"  which 
form  part  of  the  Hagiographa,  or  D^ain^,  which 
is  the  last  division  of  the  Hebrew  canon.  In  it 
the  book  follows  immediately  after  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job.  The  LXX.  and  Josephus  place  Ruth  imme- 
diately after  Judges.  The  events  of  the  book  occurred 
about  a  century  before  the  time  of  David.  The 
genealogy  at  the  end  of  the  book  is  brought  down  to 
David.  The  book  records  the  intermarriage  of  an 
Israelite  with  a  Moabitess,  which  is  suflScient  to  show 
that  it  is  historical,  and  does  not  belong  to  the 
region  of  the  poetical.  After  the  Exile  such  a  fact 
would  not  have  been  regarded  as  creditable  to  a  pious 
Israelite.  The  historical  character  of  the  story  is  also 
confirmed  by  the  friendly  intercoiu-se  recorded  between 
David  and  the  king  of  Moab  in  1  Sam.  xxii.  3,  4. 
The  so-called  "  Chaldaisms "  found  in  the  book  are 
probably  better  regarded  as  instances  of  the  spoken 
patois.  The  law  of  the  levirate  (Deut.  xxv.  7-9)  is 
not  that  referred  to  in  chap.  iv.  7.  The  genealogy  at 
the  end  of  the  book  may  be  incomplete,  but  even 
that  point  is  open  to  dispute.  No  certain  date  can 
be  assigned  for  the  authorship  of  the  book,  only  that 
it  must  have  been  written  after  the  time  of  David 
and  long  prior  to  the  Exile. 

2.  The  best  older  commentaries  on  Ruth  are  tht  se  by  Schmidt, 
Comm.  in  Lid.  Rnth,  1696  ;  Carpzov,  Colleg.  rabl).  hihl.  in  lib, 
Ruth,   -1703.      Of    the  later  critics,   Kosenmiiller,  Bertheau, 


THE   BOOKS  OF  SAMUEL.    ■         127 

Keil  and  P.  Cassel,  Aubcrlen,  have  been  mentioned  under 
Judges ;  Metzger,  lAb.  Ruth  ex  Heh.  in  Lat,  vers,  jperpet. 
interp.  illust.  1857 ;  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  The  Book  of  Ruth  in 
Meb.  and  CJiald.  with  crit.  text,  and  gram,  and  erit.  comm., 
1864  ;  F.  de  Hummelauer  (Roman  Catholic),  Comm.  in  lihros 
Judicum  et  Ruth,  1888.  J.  Morison  has  written  on  Ruth 
in  the  Fulpit  Commentary,  1881  ;  ;and  Lord  A.  C.  Hervey, 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  iu  the  Speaker's  Commentary,  1881. 
See  E.  Reuss  in  Strassiurger  Revue,  Band  vii. 


§  4.  The  Books  of  Samuel. 

1.  These  books  are  so  called,  not  because  Samuel 
was  supposed  to  have  been  the  author,  but  because 
that  prophet  is  the  most  important  character  in  the 
opening  portion.  The  title  is  most  unsuitable.  In 
the  LXX.  the  books  are  more  correctly  termed 
Bao-tXcicov  TTpi^TY],  Scvripa,  First  and  Second  Kings, 
which  is  their  name  in  the  Yulgate.  The  two  books 
are  in  reality  a  single  work,  and  are  so  regarded 
in  Hebrew  MSS.  The  division  into  first  and  second 
books  was  made  after  the  introduction  of  print- 
ing, and  was  derived  from  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate. 
According  to  the  Talmud  (Baha  Bathra,  14^  15'*), 
Samuel  wrote  Judges,  Ruth,  and  Samuel.  The  re- 
ference made  in  1  Chron.  xxix.  29  to  "  the  history  of 
Samuel  the  seer,"  is  somewhat  doubtful.  See  remarks 
on  Chronicles,  p.  135. 

The  Books  of  Samuel  contain  mainly  the  histories 
of  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David.  I.  1  Sam.  i.-xii.  traces 
the  history  of  Samuel  down  to  his  retirement  from 
the  position  of  a  Judge  over  Israel.  The  history  of 
Eli  and  his  times  is  only  incidentally  narrated.     II. 


128  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

The  history  of  Saul  from  his  accession  to  the  throne 
down  to  his  death  on  Mount  Gilboa,  1  Sam.  xiii.- 
2  Sam.  i.  Two  important  songs  are  contained  in  this 
part,  ia)  The  Song  of  Hannah,  1  Sam.  ii.  1-10 ;  and 
(h)  the  Lament  of  David  over  Saul  and  Jonathan, 
2  Sam.  i.  19-27.  III.  The  reign  of  David,  2  Sam.  ii. 
to  the  end.  The  sources  from  whence  the  book  was 
composed  were  partly  oral  and  partly  written.  The 
Book  of  Jashar  is  referred  to  in  2  Sam.  i.  18.  One 
of  the  Psalms  (Ps.  xviii.)  with  certain  modifications 
appears  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  The  author  of  the  Book  of 
Chronicles  mentions  (1  Chron.  xxvii.  24)  "  the  chroni- 
cles of  king  David."  "  The  history  of  Samuel  the 
seer,"  "the  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet,"  and  "  the 
history  of  Gad  the  seer,"  are  referred  to  in  1  Chron. 
xxix.  29  as  authorities  extant  in  the  writer's  day,  for 
"  the  acts  of  David  first  and  last."  There  seems  to 
have  been  a  book  written  by  Samuel  which  contained 
at  least  the  law  of  the  kingdom,  1  Sam.  x.  25.  It 
is  therefore  highly  probable  that  the  compiler  of 
the  Books  of  Samuel  had  those  records  before  him. 
2  Sam.  xxi.-xxiv.  partakes  of  the  character  of  an 
appendix  to  the  work. 

2.  The  editor  interwove  into  his  narrative  diflerent 
accounts  of  the  same  transaction.  Whether  those 
accounts  are  necessarily  discordant  is  quite  another 
question.  Some  of  the  variations  can  be  harmonised 
without  difficulty,  e.g.  the  three  accounts  of  Saul's 
elevation  to  the  throne  (chap,  viii.,  ix.  1-x.  16,  xi.). 
Other  narratives,  e.g.  the  accounts  of  David's  first 
introduction  to  Saul  are  more  difficult  to  bring  intc* 
harmony.     The  compiler  was,  however,  by  no  means 


THE  BOOKS  OF  SAMUEL.  129 

the  simple-minded  blunderer  which  some  critics  have 
represented  him  to  have  been.  The  text  of  the  work  is 
generally  admitted  to  have  come  down  to  us  in  a  very 
corrupt  form  (see  1  Sam.  xiii.  1,  and  2  Sam.  xxi.  19). 
Arguments  based,  therefore,  upon  the  numbers  men- 
tioned in  the  book  {e.g.  1  Sam.  vi.  19),  and  even  on 
the  names  of  persons  and  places,  must  be  received 
with  caution.  The  text  of  the  LXX.  in  many  places 
differs  much  from  the  Hebrew.  Many  critical  con- 
jectures have  been  made  in  the  way  of  correlating 
the  text,  but  the  critics  are  very  much  divided  in 
opinion.  The  book  must  have  been  composed  after 
the  division  of  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Israel 
(see  1  Sam.  xxvii.  6),  but  was  in  the  main  drawn  up 
probably  not  very  long  after  that  crisis.  The  work 
seems  to  have  undergone  revision  at  a  later  period, 
when  it  was  brought  into  close  connection  with  the 
Book  of  the  Kings.  It  may  have  proceeded  from 
several  authors,  but  such  points  must  ever  remain, 
more  or  less,  matters  of  pure  conjecture. 

3.  The  best  commentaries  on  the  Books  of  Samuel  are  those 
of  Seb.  Schmidt,  1687,  although  it  is  verbose,  extending  over 
2,000  pp.  4to  ;  of  Clericus,  1708 ;  Hensler,  Erlduterungen  des 
1  BucTi^  1795  ;  Thenius,  Bie  Bucher  Sam.  erkldrt,  2te  Ausg., 
1864  ;  Keil,  2te  Aufl.,  1864  ;  English  translation  published  by 
T.  and  T.  Clark  ;  Erdmann,  in  Lange's  Bibelwerk,  English 
translation  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark,  with  notes  by 
American  scholars;  Wellhausen,  Der  Text  der  Bh.  Samuelis 
untersucht,  1871  ;  Himpel,  Ueber  Widersinilche  u.  versch. 
Qiiellenscliriften  QTiib.  Theol.  Quartalschr.'),  1874;  A.  F. 
Kirkpatrick  (Reg.  Prof.  Heb.  at  Camb.),  1  Samuel,  1885  ;  2nd 
Samuely  1884,  in  Cambridge  Bible ;  R.  Payne  Smith  in  two 
vols,  of  the  Pidjnt   Commentary,  1880.     K-lostermann's  Bie 

9 


130  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

BiXclier  Samuelis  und  der  Kdnige,  1887  (in  Strack  and 
Zbckler's  Kurzgefasstes  Xomm.'),  contains  important  critical 
remarks,  but  Driver's  work,  J^^otes  on  the  Hehrem  Text  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel,  etc.,  1890,  is  of  more  importance  to  the 
critic  and  scholar.  F.  de  Hammelauer,  (Koman  Catholic), 
Comm.  in  Libb.  Sam.,  Paris,  1886.  Important  is  F.  H. 
Woods,  Light  thrown  on  the  LXX.  Vers,  of  the  Books  of 
Samvel,  Studia  Bibl.,  vol.  i.  Oxford,  1885 ;  C.  H.  Cornill,  Ein 
elohistisch  Bericht  in  1  Sam.  i.-xv.  aiifgezeigt,  in  Luthardt's 
Zeitschrift,  1885,  and  concluded  in  the  Konigsberger  Studien, 
Band  i.  ;  K.  Budde,  Saul's  Konigsjvahl  n.  Verwerfung  in 
Zeitschrift fiir  A.  T.Wissenschaft,  1888.  The  historical  works 
of  Ewald,  Reuss,  Kohler,  as  well  as  the  Introductions  of 
Bleek,  Davidson  and  others,  with  the  articles  in  the  larger 
Bible  Dictionaries,  ought  not  to  be  forgotten.  W.  G.  Blaikie 
has  published  two  vols,  on  First  and  Second  Samuel  in 
the  Expo.^itor's  Bible.  Also  K.  Budde,  Die  Biicher  Richter 
u.  Samuel,  ihre  Quellen  und  ihr  Aufbau,  1890. 

§  5.  The  Books  of  the  Kings. 

1.  These  two  books  formed  originally  one,  under 
the  title  Q^?/P  ">?>P  (see  Origen  in  Euseh.  Hist.  Eccl, 
vi.  25);  but  they  were  afterwards  divided  in  the  LXX., 
where  they  are  designated  respectively  Bao-tA-eicoi/  rpLTrj 
Kol  T€TdpT7],  and  so  in  the  Yulgate  3  and  4  Kings.  The 
division  found  in  the  LXX.  was  adopted  in  the  printed 
Hebrew  text  from  the  Bomberg  printed  editions.  In 
the  MSS.  and  in  the  earliest  printed  editions  the 
books  af)pear  as  one.  The  narrative  falls  into  three 
parts.  I.  The  reign  of  Solomon,  chap,  i.-xi.  II.  A 
synchronical  account  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and 
Israel  until  the  captivity  of  Israel,  1  Kings  xii.- 
2  Kings  xvii.  III.  The  history  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  down  to  the  Babylonian  conquest  and  the  exile 


THE  BOOKS  OF  KINGS.  131 

of   the   people,   2   Kings    xviii.-xxv.       The   compiler 
refers  to  the  following  sources  from  which  his  history- 
was  composed :    (1)  The  book  of  the  acts  of  Solomon, 
1  Kings  xi.  41.     (2)  The  books  of  the  chronicles  of 
the  kings  of  Juclah  (1  Kings  xiv.  29)  up  to  the  death 
of  Jehoiakim.     (3)  The  books  of  the  chronicles  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  up  to  the  death  of  Pekah  (see  p.  134). 
The    chronicles    referred    to   were    not    the    official 
records    themselves,    but    probably    books    compiled 
therefrom,  written  shortly   before  the   Exile.      The 
constant  expression  used,  "  unto  this  day,"  has  been 
fairly  adduced   as   a   proof  of  this  conjecture.     The 
latter  phrase  evidently  presupposes  the  existence  of 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  cannot  refer  to  the  Exile. 
The  histories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  w^ere  taken  from 
some  other  sources,  and  are  among  the  most  remark- 
able portions  of  the  work.     The   histories   of  those 
two  great  prophets  are  in  many  respects  singularly 
akin  to  the  histories  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Christ 
in    the    New    Testament.      But     Elijah's   character 
and  the  work  he  performed  in  Israel,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Book  of  Kings,  towers  in  most  respects  far  above 
that  of  Elisha.     The  latter  prophet,  however,  appears 
to  have  made   more   provision,  than  his  predecessor 
EKjah  seems  to  have  done,  for  the  continuance  of  his 
work  after  his  death.     The  religious  object  and  design 
of   the  Book   of  Kings   is  fully  apparent  from  the 
reflections  made  on  the  events  recorded,  especially  in 
2  Kings  xvii.     The  Book  of  Kings  contains  the  only 
account  of  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  after 
the  great  disruption,  for  the  Book  of  Chronicles  gives 
no  separate  history  of  the  northern  kingdom. 


132  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

2  Many  of  the  old  commentators  are  deserving  of  attention ; 
among  the  Fathers,  especially  Ephrem  Syrus  and  Theodoret. 
Among  the  Reformers  and  the  scholars  of  that  century,  the 
works  of  Bugenhagen  and  Strigelius  deserve  notice,  and  in 
the  succeeding  century  those  of  Leonhardi,  Sanctius,  Schmidt, 
and  Clericus.  Among  the  special  commentaries  of  this  century 
on  the  book,  the  more  important  are  those  of  Keil,  1845  and 
1864  ;  and  Thenius,  1849,  1873  ;  Bahr,  in  Lange's  Biblewerk; 
Klostermann  (see  on  Samuel,  p.  129).  Many  important  con- 
tributions have  been  made  on  special  points  by  Kern,  Oehler, 
O.  Wolff,  H.  Brandes,  and  Wellhausen.  Most  important  on 
this  book  is  the  information  given  by  Schrader  in  his  Keilin- 
schriften  nnd  das  Alt-Test.,  ably  translated  by  Rev.  O.  C. 
Whitehouse,  1885,  1888  (see  p.  103).  See  also  B.  Stade, 
GescMchte  des  Volkes  Israel  unter  der  Konig sherrscJiaft, 
1887  ;  Dr.  W.  Wright  (of  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society), 
The  Empire  of  the  Hittites,  2nd  edit.,  1886  ;  J.  R.  Lumby, 
First  Booh  of  Kings,  with  Introduction  and  Notes,  1886  ; 
Second  Kings,  1887  :  in  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools.  Useful 
for  popular  purposes  is  G.  Rawlinson,  Lives  and  Times  of 
Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  1889.  J.  Hammond  has  written 
on  1  Kings  in  VnQPuljj'it  Commentary ,  1881,  Prof.  G,  Rawlinson 
on  2  Kings  in  the  same  work,  and  in  the  Sj^eaJiei'^s  Com- 
mentary. A.  Edersheim,  History  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and 
Israel,  1880.  J.  Hal6vy,  Manasse  roi  de  Judah,  in  the  Revue 
des  Mudes  Juives,  1881. 

§  6.*  The  Books  of  the  Chronicles. 

1.  The  Books  of  the  Chronicles  are  styled  in  Hebrew 
D''P*n  ''^?'7,  the  Acts  or  Annals  of  the  Days.  In  the 
Hebrew  the  two  books  form  one  great  historical 
work.  The  LXX.  divided  the  work  into  two  books, 
styling  them  IlapaXeiTro/xeva,  things  passed  over, 
or  omitted.  The  Latin  has  followed  the  LXX. 
in  the  division  of  the  book,  but  has  retained 
the     name      Paralipomenon     (genitive     plur.     after 


THE   BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES.         133 

Liber)  which    is    also    used    in    the   Douay    Version. 
Jerome,  in  his  Prologus  galeatus,  suggested  the  title 
Chronicon  as  preferable,  whence  the  name  Chronicles. 
The  book  supplements  in  several  points  that  of  the 
Kings,  and  is  written  even  from  a  more  distinctly 
religious  and  Levitical  standpoint  than  the  former 
work.     Hence  the  history  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
which,  by  the  sin  of  Jeroboam  had  apostatised  from 
the  covenant,  is  only  given    as  far  as  it  came  into 
connection  with  that  of  Judah.    The  book  is  natui-ally 
divided  into  four  parts.     I.   1  Chron.  i.-ix.,  consisting 
of  genealogies  from  Adam,  some  of  which  are  brought 
down  to  a  date  beyond  the  Captivity  (see  chap.  iii.). 
Those  genealogies  present  many  difficulties,  some  of 
which  are  insoluble,  owing  to  the  absence  of  other 
data.    The  genealogies  taken  from  Genesis  are  design- 
edly curtailed.    Information,  in  addition  to  that  found 
in  Genesis,  is  given  in  some  instances.     These  facts 
give  a  peculiar  importance  to  the  later  portions  of 
those   genealogies.     II.  1   Chron.  x.-xxix.   gives   the 
history  of  David,  which  is  remaikable  both  for  the 
omissions  which  occur  in  the  narrative,  and  also  for 
the  many  new  facts  recorded  which  are  not  given  in 
the  Book  of  the  Kings.     III.  The  reign  of  Solomon 
(2  Chron.  i.-ix.),  in   which  the  omissions  are  many, 
and   the   additions,    though   few,  are   by   no   means 
wanting   in    signification.      lY.  The    history  of    the 
kings  of  Judah   up  to   the  Captivity  (2  Chron.   x.- 
xxxvi.).     The  additions  made  in  this  portion  are  of 
special  interest. 

2.  The  Book  of  Chronicles  was  composed  after  the 
Exile.     It  was  not  designed  to  be  merely  a  supple- 


134  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

ment  to  the  Book  of  Kings.  It  is  in  several  respects 
an  independent  history,  and  evidently  not  intended 
to  supersede  the  Book  of  Kings,  from  which  no 
inconsiderable  portion  of  its  contents  is  derived. 
Many  sections  agree  almost  verbally  with  that  of  the 
Kings,  while  the  knowledge  of  the  history  contained 
in  that  book  is  presupposed  in  several  places ;  e.g.  the 
reference  to  Elijah  (2  Chron.  xxi.  12-16)  takes  for 
granted  that  the  reader  is  well  acquainted  with  the 
history  of  that  prophet.  A  knowledge  of  the  sayings  of 
Elijah  and  of  the  acts  of  Elisha  is  also  presupposed 
in  2  Chron.  xxii.  7,  8.  Hence  we  cannot  agree  with 
those  critics  who  suppose  that  the  omissions  in  the 
work  were  made  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  facts 
discreditable  to  certain  kings.  The  compiler  of  the 
work  was  probably  a  Levite  interested  in  the  music 
of  the  Second  Temple.  The  sources  of  the  history 
appear  to  have  been  numerous.  The  editor  was 
acquainted  with  both  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings 
in  a  somewhat  similar  form  to  that  in  which  we  have 
them,  and  he  quotes  from  both.  His  authorities  were : 
(1)  The  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel.  This 
authority  is  frequently  referred  to.  It  is  hard  to  decide 
whether  several  books  are  not  quoted  under  that  name. 
For  "  the  book  of  the  kin^s  of  Israel "  is  spoken  of  in 
2  Chron.  xx.  34,  and  "  the  acts  "  or  "  history  "  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  in  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  18;  the  most 
common  reference  being  to  "  the  book  of  the  .kings 
of  Judah  and  Israel"  (2  Chron.  xvi.  11,  xxv.  26),  or  to 
*'the  book  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah"  (2  Chron. 
xxvii.  7,  etc.).  The  "book  or  "history"  referred  to 
cannot  be  identified  with  the  Book  of  Kings,  because 


THE  BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES.         135 

it  contained  histories  of  events  not  found  in  that 
work.  (2)  The  history  of  Samvael  the  seer.  This  work 
may  possibly  have  been  the  well-known  Book  of 
Samuel.  (3)  The  history  of  Nathan  the  prophet. 
(4)  The  history  of  Gad  the  seer.  All  these  are 
referred  to  in  1  Chron.  xxix.  29 ;  and  the  work  of 
Nathan  with  (5)  the  ^^ropAec^  of  Ahijah,  and  (6) 
the  visions  of  Iddo  in  2  Chron.  ix.  29 ;  and  the 
last-mentioned  possibly  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  22.  Iddo 
is  also  referred  to  in  connection  with  the  (7) 
history  of  Shemaiah,  2  Chron.  xii.  15.  (8)  The 
history  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani,  2  Chron.  xx.  34. 
(9)  The  Midrashj  or  Commentary  on  the  Book  of 
the  Kings,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  27.  But  the  translation 
"commentary"  is  doubtful.  (10)  A  book  of  Isaiah 
about  Uzziah,  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22,  as  well  as  (11) 
the  Vision  of  Isaiah,  2  Chron.  xxxii.  32.  (12)  The 
history  of  Hozai,  or  of  the  Seers,  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  19. 
It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  some  of 
those  books  may  not  be  merely  sections  of  a  large 
history  (compare  the  expression  in  Bom.  xi.  2,  h/ 
'HA-eia).  The  writer  may  have  lived  as  late  as  the 
early  portion  of  the  Grecian  period,  as  has  been 
conjectured  from  his  reference  to  Persian  coins 
(1  Chron.  xxix.  7),  and  especially  from  the  genealogy 
in  1  Chron.  iii.  19-24,  which  is  traced  for  several 
generations  after  Nehemiah.  The  compiler  probably 
lived  a  century  after  that  governor.  Some  critics 
place  the  work  as  late  as  the  early  days  of  Alexander 
the  Great.  It  closes  abruptly  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence.  The  last  three  verses  are  identical  with 
the   three   first   of  Ezra,  in  which   latter  place  the 


136  TEE   HISTORICAL   BOOKS. 

sentence  left  unfinished  in  the  Chronicles  is  completed. 
The  book  may  have  been  originally  united  with  that 
of  Ezra,  and  have  proceeded  from  the  same  writer 
According  to  Jewish  tradition  Ezra  was  the  com- 
piler; but  the  genealogy  already  referred  to  is  opposed 
to  that  view.  The  text  is  considerably  corrupted  in 
some  parts  of  the  work,  especially  in  the  case  of 
proper  names,  and  in  the  numbers  mentioned.  Some 
critics  consider  the  work  inferior  in  historical  credi- 
bility to  the  Kings.  But  the  compiler,  as  already 
noted,  actually  presupposes  in  many  cases  an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  former  book,  and  the  omissions 
in  his  history  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  discrepancies. 
There  are,  however,  many  difficulties  which  become 
apparent  on  a  careful  comparison  of  the  two  books, 
and  which  are  not  yet  capable  of  satisfactory  solution. 

3.  Most  of  the  works  recommended  on  the  Kings  can  also 
be  consulted  with  advantage  on  the  Book  of  Chronicles.  Many 
commentators  have  commented  on  both  books.  On  the 
Book  of  Chronicles  in  particular  the  following  works  are 
of  special  importance  :  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Ajinot.  in  Paralip. 
in  his  Zfheriores  Annot.  in  Eagiograjilia,  3  vols.,  1719,  1720, 
and  the  later  commentaries  of  Bertheau,  1854,  2te  Aufl., 
1873  ;  Keil,  1870  ;  Zockler,  in  Lange's  Bihelwerk,  1874 ; 
in  the  English  edition  important  additions  have  been  made 
by  American  scholars.  S.  Oettli  has  written  on  Die  ge- 
sckichtl.  Hagiographa  in  Strack-Zo cider's  Kurzgefasst.  KoinrA„ 
1889.  The  work  of  Klostermann,  1887  (see  p.  129)  must  not 
be  forgotten.  Note  also  Caspari's  monograph  on  the  Syr.' 
Ephr.  Xrieg,  mentioned  under  Isaiah.  Useful  for  teachers 
is  Rev.  Dr.  Murphy  on  The  Books  of  the  Chronicles,  T.  and  T. 
Clark,  1880.  Rev.  Prof.  P.  C.  Barker  has  written  on  1  and  2 
Chron.  in  Pulpit  Comm.  and  C.J.  Ball  in  Bp.EUicott's  Comm. 


EZRA    AND   NEHEMIAH.  137 

§  7.     The  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemjati. 

1.  The  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  in  Hebrew 
MSS.  regarded  as  one,  and  are  designated  the  Book  of 
Ezra  (see  also  Josephus,  Against  Apion,  i.  8).  In  the 
later  Hebrew  Bibles,  and  in  the  LXX.,  the  work  was 
correctly  divided  into  two  books.  In  the  LXX.  the 
books  are  styled  Second  Esdras  and  Nehemiah.  See 
remarks  on  pp.  138,  139.  The  Yulgate  terms  the 
two  canonical  books  respectively  First  and  Second 
Esdras.  The  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  though 
proceeding  from  different  authors,  were,  in  all  pro- 
bability, originally  part  and  parcel  of  the  Chronicles. 
Each  of  the  two  books  falls  into  two  sections.  I.  Ezra 
(a)  chap,  i.-vi.  treats  of  the  return  of  the  exiles  under 
Sheshbazzar,  or  Zerubbabel,  B.C.  536,  when  Joshua 
was  high  priest,  and  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple, 
accomplished  in  the  sixth  year  of  Darius,  B.C.  516. 
The  period  is  described  in  the  contemporary  writings 
of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  (b)  The  second  portion 
(chap,  vii.-x.)  relates  the  events  which  occurred  half 
a  century  later.  The  second  expedition  from  Babylon 
occurred  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus  (b.c.  458-457),  and  was  led  by  Ezra  to 
Jerusalem.  On  this  occasion  the  expulsion  of  the 
foreign  wives  took  place.  More  than  one-fourth  of  the 
exiles  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  did  not  belong  to 
the  tribes  of  Judah  or  Benjamin,  but  were  members 
of  the  other  tribes  (see  Wright's  Bampton  Lectures^ 
p.  279).  The  number  of  individuals  belonging  to  the 
other  ten  tribes  was  about  12,000,  out  of  a  gross  total 
of  42,360.     No  impediment,  as  far  as  we  know,  was 


138  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

placed  in  the  way  of  the  return  of  all  the  Israelites. 
Many  thoasands,  no  doubt,  returned  at  a  later  period, 
although  the  bulk  of  all  the  tribes  preferred  to  remain 
in  the  land  of  their  dispersion.  There  is  no  full 
account  of  the  Return,  because  a  blank  of  a  century 
and  a  half  exists  in  the  Jewish  annals  of  the  period. 
II.  Nehemiali.  (a)  Neh.  i.-vii.  736*  relate  his  journey 
from  Shushan  in  the  twentieth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  (bc.  445-444),  and  the  rebuilding  of  the 
walls  of  Jerusalem,  (b)  The  second  portion — Neh. 
vii.  736  to  end — describes  the  work  of  the  restoration 
of  religion,  brought  about  by  the  united  efforts  of 
Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  This  includes  the  solemn  read- 
ing of  the  Law  to  all  Israel  (chap.  viii.  1-12),  the 
keeping  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (chap.  viii.  13-18), 
the  great  confession  (chap,  ix.),  the  sealing  of  the 
covenant  by  the  chiefs  of  the  people  (chap,  x.), 
the  list  of  the  returned  exiles  (chap,  xi.,  xii.  1-26), 
the  dedication  of  the  walls  (chap.  xii.  27-xiii.  3), 
and  the  correction  of  divers  abuses  (chap.  xiii.  4-31). 

Considerable  portions  of  the  two  books  aie  no  doubt 
derived  from  the  memoirs  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah; 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  books  in  their  present 
shape  were  the  works  of  those  authors.  A  portion 
of  Ezra  (chap.  iv.  8  to  chap.  vi.  18)  with  chap.  vii. 
11-26  is  written  in  Aramaic  (Chaldee),  see  p.  193. 
The  mention  of  Jaddua  (high  priest  in  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great)  in  Neh.  xii.  11,  22  seems  to 
prove  that  the  work  must  have  been  composed  later 
than  the  time  of  ISTehemiah. 

2.  The  apocryphal  Book  of  Ezra  requires  some  notice  here. 
It  is  called  in  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  the  First  Book  of  Esdras 


EZRA    AND  NEBEMIAH,  139 

or  Ezra,  and  is  placed  in  those  Versions  immediately  before 
Ezra,  which  is  then  called  Second  Esdras.  In  the  Vulgate, 
however,  the  book  is  known  as  Third  Esdras,  and  usually 
placed  along  with  Fourth  Esdras  at  the  end  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment along  with  the  Prayer  of  Manasses,  these  three  books 
not  being  regarded  as  canonical  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
The  apocryphal  Book  of  Ezra  is  for  the  most  part  a  compilation 
out  of  2  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah ;  mainly,  however, 
from  the  Book  of  Ezra.  It  is  of  some  importance  in  connection 
with  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  Ezra,  although  inferior  in 
authority,  and  abounding  in  contradictory  statements.  The 
book  seems  to  have  been  left  unfinished.  It  contains  some 
curious  additions  from  unknown  sources,  the  most  interesting 
being  the  story  of  the  three  wise  men  and  their  contest  for 
the  palm  of  wisdom  before  king  Darius,  as  related  in  chaps. 
iii.  and  iv.  Josephus  made  use  of  this  book  to  the  detriment 
of  his  own  history.  The  writer  in  the  extracts  given  from  the 
canonical  book,  seems  to  have  made  use  of  the  LXX.  version, 
and  not  of  the  Hebrew  original.  The  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras 
or,  as  it  is  styled  in  the  English  Apocrypha,  the  Second  Book 
of  Esdras,  is  an  apocalyptical  production,  and  has  no  bearing 
upon  the  canonical  book. 

3.  Of  the  older  commentaries  on  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the 
best  are  those  of  ^irigel,  Ezra,  1571,  JVeheDiiah, 1575 ;  Clericus, 
in  Comm.  in  Libb.  Hist.,  1733  ;  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  J.  J.  Eam- 
bach,  in  Uheriores  Notes  in  Ilagiogr.,  vol.  iii.  Of  the  more 
modern,  are  the  following:  Bertheau,  Ezra,  Neli.,  Esth.,  1862, 
and  the  new  work  based  on  Bertheau,  but  greatly  modified 
by  V.  Ryssel,  1887;  Kamphausen,  in  BunsevUs  Bihehverk,  i. 
Abschn.  3;  Keil,  1870;  Schulz,  Ezra- Esther,  in  Lange's  Bibel- 
werh,  1876,  English  edition  with  notes  by  American  scholars; 
Bohme,  Ueher  d.  Text  des  NeJi.,  1871  ;  A.  F.  Kleinert,  Ueher 
die  Entstehung ,  Bestandtlieile,  u.  das  Alter  der  Bilcher  Ezr. 
u.  Neh.,  1832 ;  Noldeke,  Die  alt-test.  Litteratnr,  1868 ;  Eb. 
Schrader,  Die  Dauer  des  zweiten  Tempelbaves,  in  the  Stndien 
u.  Kritiken,  1867.  G.  Rawlinson  has  written  on  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  in  Pulpit  Commentary,  1880;  and 
in  Speaker's  Commentary,     Smend,  Bie  Listen  der  Bilcher 


140  THE    HISTORICAL   BOOKS. 

Ezra  wid  Nehemlah,  1881  ;  Kabbi  Saadiah,  Commentary  on 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  edited  by  H.  J.  Matthews,  in  Semitic  series 
of  Att^c.  Oxon.,  1882.  S.  Oettli  in  Stracl-ZocUer's  Komm.,  1889. 
See  also  J.  Hal6vy,  Cyrus  et  le  retour  de  Vexile,  in  the  Mevue 
des  Etudes  Juives,  Paris,  1880.     For  Sayce,  see  p.  146. 

§  8.  The  Book  of  Esther. 

1.  The  Book  of  Esther  was  written  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  Feast  of  Purim  {lots),  and  was  possibly- 
intended  by  the  wiiter  to  be  read  during  that  feast 
(chap.  ix.  27).  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
details  of  the  story,  it  is  impossible  that  a  national 
feast  like  that  of  Purim  could  have  originated  in 
historical  times  without  some  adequate  cause,  such 
as  that  described  in  the  book.  This  difficulty  has 
induced  some  to  maintain  that  the  book  was  trans- 
lated from  the  Persian,  and  that  the  feast  was  the 
Persian  feast  Purdian.  That  view,  however,  though 
set  forth  by  J.  von  Hammer  in  1827,  and  lately 
revived  by  Yatke  in  his  Hist.  krit.  Einleitung  in  d. 
A.  T.,  ed.  by  Preiss,  is  beset  with  more  difficulties 
than  the  ordinary,  and  has  found  no  real  support 
among  critics.  The  day  of  Mardoceus  (Mordecai)  is  re- 
ferred to  in  2  Mace.  xv.  36.  Ahasuerus  was  e^ddently 
Xerxes,  though  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether 
Esther  can  be  identified  with  Amastris,  the  wife  of 
Xerxes,  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  who  may,  however, 
have  been  Yashti.  The  rash  temper  of  Ahasuerus 
and  the  Persian  customs  are  correctly  delineated  in  the 
story.  The  name  of  God  does  not  occur  in  the  book, 
probably  because  it  was  designed  to  be  read  in  the 
Jewish  houses  during  feasting,  and  it  was  deemed 
more  reverential  to  omit,  under  such  circumstances, 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER.  141 

direct  mention  of  the  name  of  God,  for  which  the  later 
Jews  preferred  to  use  divers  circumlocutions  (comp. 
"  against  heaven,"  Luke  xv.  18).  The  book  forms  one 
of  the  five  Megilloth,  or  "  rolls."  The  author's  ex- 
planations of  Persian  usages  (chap.  i.  13,  iv.  11,  viii.  8) 
have  been  often  regarded  as  proofs  of  its  composition 
at  a  later  era.  But  this  is  by  no  means  decisive ',  for 
if  the  book  was  intended  to  be  read  in  all  the  f  amihes 
of  the  Jews  throughout  the  Persian  empire,  such 
explanations  would  be  necessary.  When  the  Feast 
of  Purim  was  instituted,  circular  letters  must  have 
been  sent  round  to  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion,  and 
no  time  could  have  been  better  suited  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Book  of  Esther.  The  overruling  power 
of  Providence  is  the  great  lesson  taught.  The  fact 
that  the  book  was  introduced  into  the  canon  much 
later  is  not  at  variance  with  the  opinion  that  it  was 
composed  in  the  Persian  period. 

2.  The  name  of  God  or  JeJiovah  does  not  occur  in 
the  Book  of  Esther.  It  has  been  calculated  that  in 
the  book  which  contains  167  verses,  the  Persian  king 
is  mentioned  nearly  190  times  (the  name  Ahasuerus 
occurring  29  times).  The  fact  has  often  been  a 
stumbling-block.  The  book  is  omitted  in  the  lists 
of  the  canonical  Old  Testament  writings  given  by 
Melito.  That  omission  may,  however,  have  been 
accidental ;  but  some  have  ascribed  it  to  the  cause 
just  alluded  to.  The  book  is  omitted  also  from  the 
list  given  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  and  some  of  the 
Jewish  Rabbis  sought  to  exclude  it  from  the  canon 
(see  Excursus  II.  to  my  Koheleih).  Athanasius  looked 
coldly  on  the  work,   ranking  it  with  non-canonical 


142  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

books  [Epist.  Fest.),  Luther  also  suspected  it.  An 
ingenious  attempt  has  been  made  by  Dr.  E.  W.  Bul- 
linger  to  discover  "  The  name  of  Jehovah  in  the  Book  of 
Esther.''  His  pamphlet  thus  entitled  was  issued  in  1889, 
price  3cZ.  To  be  had  ''  from  the  author,  Bremgarten, 
Woking."  It  is  an  exegetical  curiosity.  He  asserts 
that  "  in  the  Book  of  Esther  the  name  of  Jehovah  is 
given  four  times  in  an  acrostic  form."  To  these  four 
"  acrostics "  Dr.  BuUinger  adds  a  fifth,  in  a  later 
article  in  the  "  Quarterly  Record  of  the  Trinitarian 
Bible  Society"  for  January,  1890.  These  "acrostics," 
according  to  Bullinger,  are  not  "  the  mere  work  of 
man,"  but  designed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  !  They  are 
discovered  in  the  initials  "read  backwards"  (Esther  i. 
20)  of  the  words  l^n*'  D^^JH  ^31  NM  ;  in  ch.  v.  4  in  the 
initials  "read  forward"  of  DINT  jDHI  "I'pon  Nin^ ;  in 
v.  13  in  the  final  letters  of  the  words  h  HVlJ^  1^3 \S*  HT; 
and  similarly  in  the  finals  (vii.  7)  of  T[V'\r\  V^N*  nni?D  ^3. 
The  fifth  "acrostic"  is  that  of  n^n«  (Ex.  iii.  14) 
"  read  backwards  as  well  as  forwards,"  in  four  out  of 
the  five  words  (vii.  5)  of  ^?1^  nt  ^N1  HT  Nin  ! !  These 
"  acrostics  "  are  noted  in  some  MSS.  in  the  Massorah. 
The  phenomenon  thus  noted  has  been  observed 
before.  In  a  volume  of  the  series  known  as  Bihliotheca 
Bremensis,  or  Bihliotheca  Historico-Philologico-Theo- 
logica,  classis  quintse  Ease.  prim.  Amstelodamii,  ap. 
Sam.  Schoonwald  mdccxxi.  Ease.  sext.  mdccxxii.,  at 
pp.  982-989,  there  is  a  short  but  interesting  article 
entitled,  Joachimi  Christiani  Jehring  Ohserv.  de  locis 
quihusdam  Pent,  et  lib.  Esth.  In  it  Jehring  mentions 
that  the  Jews  called  such  coincidences  in  initials  or 
finals  by  the  technical  phrases  Rashe  Teboth  and  Sophe 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER.  143 

Teboth,  and  that  they  were  accustomed  to  show  especial 
respect  when  verses  with  such  combinations  of  letters 
were  read  in  their  synagogues.  The  following  is  his 
list  of  the  phenomena  in  the  Pentateuch :  Gen.  i.  33 
with  ii.  1 ;  xi.  9,  xii.  15,  xix.  13,  xix.  25,  xxix.  24,  25, 
xxxviii.  7,  xxxviii.  24,  25,  xliii.  10,  xhv.  3,  4 ;  Exod. 
iii.  13,  iv.  3,  iv.  14,  iv.  16,  xii.  15,  16,  xvi.  7,  xvi.  22, 
XXV.  23,  xxvi.  21,  22,  xxxvi.  26,  27,  xxxvii.  10 ;  Lev. 
iv.  17,  18,  v.  9,  10,  viii.  15;  ix.  9  in  the  initials  "  read 
backwards  "  of  p^^>  Din-riiSI  nnTDH,  also  in  the  same 
verse  in  connection  with  the  succeeding  verse,  in  the 
initials  "read  forward"  of  l^nn  nxi  :  niTDH  IID^  in  xiv. 
25,  26,  xxi.  22;  Num.  i.  51  in  the  words,  njnni  D^l^n 
1Dp>  pt^'Dn,  and  also  in  same  verse  in  n"ipn  "imi  D^l^n 
nor  ,  V.  11,  V.  18,  xiii.  30,  xiii.  32,  xix.  12,  xxiv.  13; 
Deut.  ix.  19,  20,  x.  7,  xi.  2,  xxiv.  5,  xxx.  12,  xxxii. 
38,  39.  Jehring  gives  at  the  end  of  this  list  the 
four  first  cases  in  Esther.  Tlie  phenomena,  however, 
might  easily  be  traced  throughout  the  Bible  (see 
1  Chron.  v.  12;  1  Kings  xviii.  4,  etc.). 

According  to  Dr.  Bullinger,  the  reason  for  conceal- 
ing the  Divine  name  in  Esther  was  that  at  the 
period  of  which  it  treats  ''  God's  face  was  hidden, 
hence  His  name  was  hidden  "  !  The  conclusion  is  not 
very  dissimilar  from  the  argument  wliich  the  Jews, 
according  to  Jehring,  derived  from  the  phenomena  in 
Deut.  xxx.  12.  The  initial  letters  of  the  words  found 
there  (no^DK^H  1J^  rb]^^  >d)  form  n^>p,  the  common 
post-Biblical  term  for  circumcision.  The  finals  of  the 
same  words  make  nms  Jehovah.  The  phrase  is  cor- 
rectly translated,  "  Who  shall  ascend  (or  go  up)  for 
us  to  heaven  ?  "     But  the  verb  might  be  regarded  as 


144  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

causative,  and  so  by  some,  ignorant  of  syntactical  rules, 
the  sentence  was  rendered  "  Who  shall  bring  us  up 
into  heaven  ?  "  The  finals  and  initials  taken  together 
were  interpreted  as  giving  the  reply  to  the  question, 
namely,  ^''Jehovah,  i.e.  through  the  circumcision.''^ 

All  such  arguments  are  but  "  sacred  trifling." 
Every  Hebrew  student  knows  that  the  three  letters 
(*,  1  and  n)  employed  in  the  composition  of  the 
Sacred  Name  are  the  most  common  letters  in  use  in 
the  language  in  the  formation  of  pronominal  suffixes, 
in  nominal  and  verbal  afformatives,  post-positive  or 
pre-positive.  Consequently  the  number  of  cases  in 
which  such  "acrostics"  must  occur  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  is  necessarily  large ;  and  there  is  nothing 
surprising  in  the  fact  that  ingenuity  has  been  able 
to  discover  five  such  cases  in  the  Book  of  Esther. 
It  is  of  little  consequence  that  the  Massorah  should, 
according  to  some  MSS.,  have  noted  the  facts.  It 
is,  however,  well  to  caution  the  unwary  against 
attaching  any  importance  to  such  "discoveries." 

3.  The  Book  of  Esther  in  the  LXX.  version  exhibits 
no  little  free  handling  of  the  original  text,  even  in 
those  portions  which  coincide  for  the  most  part  with 
the  Hebrew.  The  LXX.  also  contains  considerable 
additions  to  the  narrative.  Jerome  separated  those 
additions  in  the  Latin  Yulgate  from  the  other  portions 
of  the  work,  and  placed  them  together  at  the  end  of 
the  tenth  chapter.  In  the  English  Apocrypha  the 
additions  are  incongruously  arranged  as  a  separate 
book,  entitled,  "The  Rest  of  the  Book  of  Esther." 
The  order  in  which  the  portions  are  given  in  the 
English  Apocrypha   is   that   of   the  Latin  Vulgate. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ESTHER.  145 

The  additions  consist  of  the  following  pieces  :  (1)  The 
dream  of  Mordecai,  prophetical  of  the  dehverance  of 
the  Jewish  people,  with  an  enlarged  account  of  the 
conspiracy  of  the  eunuchs,  briefly  recorded  in  the 
canonical  Esther,  ii.  21-23.  This  portion,  which 
occupies  in  the  English  Apocrypha  xi.  2-xii.  6,  is  in 
the  LXX.  placed  at  the  opening  of  the  book  before 
chap.  i.  1.  (2)  The  exj^osition  of  Afordecai's  dreamy 
which  occurs  in  the  LXX.  at  the  close  of  the  work 
after  chap.  x.  4,  is  given  in  the  English  Apocrypha 
as  the  opening  chapter  of  the  separated  portion,  and 
entitled  "  i*art  of  the  Tenth  Chapter  after  the  Greek." 
The  last  verse  of  this  (chap.  x.  15  in  the  Greek,  but 
chap.  xi.  1  in  the  English  Apocrypha)  contains  a 
curious  but  vague  account  of  the  introduction  into 
Egypt  of  the  letter  enjoining  the  observance  of  the 
Feast  of  Purim.  (3)  The  decree  drawn  up  hy  Haman 
for  the  destruction  of  the  Jews.  This  is  inserted  in 
the  Greek  between  Esther  iii.  13  and  14,  but  in  the 
English  Apocrypha  occupies  chap.  xiii.  1-7.  (4)  The 
Prayer  of  Mordecai,  which  immediately  follows  in  the 
English  Apocrypha,  occupying  chap,  xiii,  8-18,  is  given 
in  the  Greek  after  chap,  iv.  17.  (5)  The  Prayer  of 
Esther,  found  in  the  English  Apocrypha  at  chap.  xiv. 
1-19,  follows  in  the  Greek  immediately  after  that 
of  Mordecai,  in  chap,  iv,  (6)  The  fuller  account  of 
Esther^s  interview  with  the  king,  given  in  the  English 
Apocrypha  at  chap,  xv.,  occurs  in  the  Greek  in  the 
commencement  of  chap,  v.,  before  chap,  v,  3  in  the 
Hebrew.  (7)  The  edict  in  favour  of  the  Jews,  which 
occupies  chap.  xvi.  in  the  English  Apocrypha,  occurs 
in  the  Greek  after  chap.  viii.  12. 

10 


146  THE  HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

Besides  all  these,  it  ought  to  be  noted  that  many 
important  minor  additions  occur  in  the  Greek  through- 
out, and  others  in  the  Vulgate  text  of  the  portions  not 
found  in  the  Hebrew.  The  EngHsh  reader  will  find 
the  latter  given  in  Churton's  excellent  edition  of  The 
Uncanonical  and  A'pocryphal  ScriiMires,  1884.  The 
LXX.  insert  various  names  of  God  in  the  portions 
translated  from  the  Hebrew  (e.^.,  ch.  vi.  1,  13)  as 
well  as  in  the  additions  made  to  the  book. 

The  additions  have,  as  Vatke  observes,  a  thoroughly 
Alexandrian  character.  Haman  is  styled  a  Macedonian^ 
because,  in  the  period  to  which  the  "additioi^"  belong, 
the  Macedonians  were  looked  upon  as  oppressors. 
Several  of  the  "  additions"  were  known  to  Josephus. 

4.  Several  of  the  works  of  the  older  commentators  on  this 
book,  such  as  that  of  Clericus,  are  still  of  value.  Among  the 
moderns  may  be  mentioned  Kelle,  VincLicicB  Estlierce,  1820  ; 
Baumgarten, Z?<9^^e  EHhercBcomm.  hist.-critica,l83d  ;  Nickes, 
Be  JEstherce  lib.  (2  vols.),  Kome,  1856 ;  Bertheau,  1862  ;  Keil, 
1870  ;  Schultz,  in  Lange's  Bibdwerk,  1876  ;  Paulus  Cassel, 
1878,  full  of  information  and  interesting  on  many  accounts. 
Not  a  few  of  his  remarks  breathe,  as  has  been  remarked,  the 
very  spirit  of  the  Midrash.  The  English  translation,  by  A. 
Berstein,  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1888,  contains  much 
new  matter.  J.  S.  Bloch,  Hellenist isclie  Bestandteile  ivi  hibl. 
Schrifttlinm ;  eine  liv.  Untersuchung,  1877,  2te  Aufl.,  1882. 
Ber  hist  or.  Hintevgrund  und  d.  Ahfassungszeit  d.  Buches 
JEstlwr  in  Griitz'  Monatsschrift  des  Judentlmms  for  1886. 
P.  de  Lagarde,  Purim,  ein  Beitrag  ziir  Gescli.  der  Religion, 
1887,  is  learned,  but  fanciful.  A.  H.  Sayce's  Introd.  to  the 
Boohs  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  1885,  and  B.  Jacob's 
Bas  Buck  Esther  hei  devi  LXX.  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  A.  T. 
WissenscTiaft,  1890,  are  important. 


^•M 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  POETICAL   BOOKS. 

§  1.  The  Book  of  Job. 

ANY  of  the  assertions  made  concerning  Job 
are  based  on  pure  conjecture.  The  name 
Job  (^i'5^)  is  wholly  unconnected  with  the  name 
y\\  written  also  Job  in  the  Authorised  Version,  which 
occurs  in  Gen.  xlvi.  13.  In  the  Revised  Version  that 
name  is,  to  avoid  misconception,  written  lob.  The 
name  Job  is  of  course  equally  out  of  connection  with 
Jobab  (nnr),  found  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  33.  The  LXX. 
has,  however,  incorrectly  identified  it  with  the  latter 
in  the  addition  made  in  that  Version  to  the  book  at 
the  close  of  chap.  xlii.  The  earliest  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  which  the  patriarch  Job  is  alluded  to 
as  a  historical  person  are  :  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  16,  20.  The 
book  is  quoted  by  Jeremiah.  Compare  Jer.  xx.  14  ff. 
with  Job.  iii.  A  close  connection  exists  between 
Ps.  viii.  5  and  Job  vii.  1 7  ff. ;  Ps.  Ixxii.  and  Job  xxix. ; 
Prov.  xvi.  15  and  Job  xxix.  23  ff.;  Hos.  ii.  8  and 
Job.  xix.  8;  Isa.  xix.  5  and  Job  xiv.  11.  The  con- 
nection is  more  apparent  in  the  Hebrew  original,  and 
it  is  not  easy  to  decide  in  all  these  cases  which  is  the 
earlier  passage.  There  are  also  many  other  quotations 
from,  or  imitations  of.  Job  in  other  books  of  the  Old 
Testament. 


148  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

The  patriarch  Job  is  depicted  in  the  book  as  one 
who  lived  in  the  early  patriarchal  period.  But  that 
fact  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  poem  to  have  been  as 
early  as  Moses,  as  the  older  commentators  maintained. 
The  historical  references  in  the  poem  are  uncertain, 
for  the  author  has  shown  much  skill  in  concealing 
his  personal  surroundings.  The  reference  in  chap.  xii. 
14-25  to  the  deportation  of  people  from  one  country 
to  another  tends  to  prove  that  the  book  is  later  than 
the  Assyrian  empire,  although  some  distinguished 
critics  have  assigned  it  to  the  Solomonic  period  of 
Hebrew  literature.  The  most  probable  time  for  its 
composition  is  between  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  The 
theory  that  suffering  Job  is  an  allegory  of  suffering 
Israel  must  be  set  aside  as  unsatisfactory.  For  the 
sufferings  of  Job  are  represented  in  the  poem  not  as 
brought  upon  him  by  reason  of  sin  ;  while  the  suffer- 
ings which  befel  Israel  are  represented  throughout  the 
Old  Testament  as  the  consequences  of  transgression. 
Although  the  poet  represents  Job  as  Hving  in  the 
Hauran,  he  occasionally  reveals  his  own  Israelitish 
standpoint.  God  is  spoken  of  in  the  prologue  as 
'  Jehovah,  although  that  name  seems  to  have  been  pur- 
posely avoided  in  the  dialogue.  Job,  however,  uses  the 
name  on  two  occasions,  chap.  i.  21,  xii.  9.  The  writer 
was  well  acquainted  with  life  in  Eastern  Palestine,  and 
had  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  natural  history  of 
Egypt.  He  lived  at  a  period  when  his  readers  were 
sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  Egyptian  animals  to 
comprehend  the  glowing  descriptions  given  in  the  book 
of  the  crocodile  and  the  hippopotamus. 

2.  The  subject  of  the  book  is  the  problem  of  the 


TEE  BOOK  OF  JOB,  149 

sufferings  of  the  righteous.  Misfortunes  are  sometimes 
the  result  of  sin,  and  proceed  from  the  punitive  hand 
of  the  Almighty.  But  the  ungodly  are,  however, 
often  in  great  prosperity,  while  the  righteous  suffer 
adversity.  Afflictions  in  the  latter  cp.se  are  sometimes 
(though  man  may  not  know  it)  simply  probative, 
and  designed  to  test  and  exhibit  the  character  of  the 
pious.  This,  according  to  the  Prologue,  was  the 
unknown  cause  of  the  sorrows  that  overwhelmed 
Job. 

The  book  opens  with  a  prologue  (chap,  i.-ii.),  which 
describes  Job's  righteousness  and  prosperity,  and  the 
ruin  which  befel  him  by  reason  of  the  hostility  of 
Satan,  "  the  adversary."  Job's  trust  in  God  even  in 
adversity  is  strikingly  described.  But  the  severest 
trial  occurred  when  in  that  adversity  he  was  visited 
by  consoling  friends.  Job's  complaint  (chap,  iii.) 
afforded  his  friends  an  opportunity  of  pointing  out 
to  him  that  sin  was  the  real  cause  of  his  sufferings. 
In  three  sets  of  speeches  (chap,  iv.-xxvi.)  the  friends 
urged  that  point,  gradually  increasing  in  bitterness 
of  language  caused  by  the  obstinacy  of  Job.  For 
notwithstanding  the  repeated  attacks  of  his  friends, 
Job  stoutly  upheld  his  righteousness,  and  when  hard 
pressed,  ventured  even  to  call  in  question  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  Himself.  In  Job's  closing  speech,  however, 
the  patriarch  simply  asserted  the  incomprehensibility 
of  God's  ways.  Job's  closing  soliloquy  occupies  chap, 
xxvi.-xxxi.  A  new  speaker  (Elihu)  is  then  introduced 
in  the  person  of  a  bystander,  in  chap,  xxxii.,  preceded 
by  a  short  introduction  (xxxii.  1-5).  Elihu's  speech, 
which  advocates  the  disciplinary  and  purgative  view 


150  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

of  affliction,  occupies  chap,  xxxii.  6  to  xxxvii.  No  reply- 
is  given  in  the  book  to  the  speech  of  Elihu,  and  Elihu  is 
not  even  alluded  to  in  the  closing  chapter,  in  which  all 
the  other  speakers  are  mentioned  by  name.  The  speech 
of  Jehovah  out  of  the  whirlwind  occupies  chap,  xxxviii.- 
xli.  That  speech  did  not  explain  the  enigma  of  Job's 
sufferings;  it  simply  demonstrated  the  ignorance  of 
man,  who  is  unable  to  unravel  the  common  secrets 
of  nature  which  surround  him  on  every  side.  The 
conclusion,  suggested  but  not  expressed,  is,  if  mortal 
man  be  so  ignorant  of  common  matters,  he  cannot 
expect  to  understand  the  secrets  of  the  Most  High. 
The  voice  of  the  Almighty  out  of  the  storm-cloud  was 
enough  for  Job.  He  did  not  require  the  moral  of  that 
speech  to  be  pointed  out  to  him,  but  forthwith  acknow- 
ledged his  ignorance  and  sin  (cha,p.  xlii.  1-6).  Though 
previously  defiant.  Job  became  at  once  subdued  and 
humble.  The  book  closes  with  an  epilogue  (chap, 
xlii.  7-17)  which  narrates  how  the  friends  of  Job  were 
condemned  for  their  want  of  integrity,  and  how  Job 
himself  was  restored  again  to  prosperity. 

3.  The  book  suggests  many  critical  questions.  The 
prologue  and  epilogue,  though  portions  often  disputed, 
are  essential  to  the  work.  Without  their  assistance 
the  riddle  of  the  book  could  not  be  solved.  Although 
comparatively  little  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
fact,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Job  is  nowhere  described 
as  made  acquainted,  either  before  or  after  his  suffer- 
ings, with  the  real  cause  of  his  trials.  To  him  all 
those  sufferings  seemed  to  have  a  purely  earthly  origin. 
The  genuineness  of  several  portions  of  the  book  has 
been  disputed.    The  objections  against  the  genuineness 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOB.  151 

of  chap,  xxvii.  7-xxviii.  28,  adduced  by  Kennicott, 
Eichhorn,  Ewald  and  others,  have,  perhaps,  finally 
been  set  at  rest  by  Giesebrecht,  Der  Wendepunkt  deb 
B.  Hioh.,  Kap.  xxvii.  und  xxviii.,  1879.  The  de- 
scriptions of  behemoth,  or  the  hippopotamus,  and 
of  leviathan,  or  the  crocodile  (chap.  xl.  15  to  xli.), 
have  been  regarded  by  some  critics  as  doubtful, 
because  those  portions  might  be  omitted  without 
detriment  to  the  poem.  More  serious  are  the  diffi- 
culties which  beset  the  episode  of  Elihu  (chap,  xxxii.- 
xxxvii.),  which  appears  to  bo  an  addition  by  some 
later  hand.  The  style  in  which  the  speeches  of  Elihu 
are  composed  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  other  portions 
of  the  book.  But  although  those  chapters  may  be 
later  additions,  they  are  by  no  means  an  unimportant 
part  of  the  book.  They  contain  passages  of  undoubted 
beauty  (chap,  xxxiii.  13-30),  and,  from  an  ethical 
standpoint,  form  a  most  useful  and  important  appendix 
to  the  great  work. 

4.  The  Book  of  Job  has  called  forth  at  all  times  a  host  of 
commentators.  Of  the  older,  Fred,  Spanhemii,  Historia  lohi 
sive  de  ohscuris  hist,  conwi.,  1672,  must  not  be  forgotten,  as 
well  as  Drusii,  Nova  versio  et  scJioL,  1636 ;  J.  H.  Michaelis 
in  Annot.  in  Harjiogr.  ;  Alb.  Schultens,  Liber  lohi  cum  nova 
vers,  and  flomm.,  2  vols,  4to,  1737.  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia,  2nd 
edit.  1824;  Com2Jend.  1832.  H.  Ewald,  Kommeyitar,  1836, 
2  Aufl.,  1851  ;  and  in  his  Bicliter  des  Alt.  Bundes,  2te  Ausg., 
1854.  An  English  translation  was  published  by  Williams  and 
Norgate,  1882 ;  Heiligstedt,  Comm.  gramm.  hist.  ci'it.,  in  4th  voL 
of  Maurer,  1847 ;  Schlottmann,  1851 ;  Hirzel  in  Eurzgef.  Ex. 
Handb.,  1839,  2te  Aufl.  by  Olshausen,  1851 ;  neu  bearbeitet  von 
Dillmann,  1869;  A.  B.  Davidson,  Comm.  gram,  and  exeg.,\ol.  1 
(chap,  i.-xiii.),  1862.  The  second  volume  was  never  published. 
Also  his  Book  of  Job  with  notes,  in  Cambridge  Bible,  1884. 


152  TEE   POETICAL   BOOKS. 

Bernard's  Booh  nfJoh  exjyovnded  to  his  Camhrifl ge jnqnls,  edit, 
by  Chance,  18G4,  is  replete  with  arbitrary  interpretations,  and 
mustbe  used  with  special  caution ;  Ernest  Renan,  Le  livre  deJoh 
traduit  de  VHehren.  Etude  sur  I'age  et  lecaractere  du  poeme* 
3rd  edit.,  1865.  E.  W.  Hengstenberg, Z>a.?  Bvch  Hiob  erl'dutert^ 
1870,  1875.  Ad.  Merx,  Bas  Gedicht  vo7i  Hioh,  Bel.  text, 
hr.  learh.  u.  ilhers.  nehst  Einl.,  1871.  Hitzig,  Comm.,  1874. 
Franz  Delitzsch,  Comm.,  1864,  2te  Aufl.,  1876 ;  English  transla- 
tion published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark.  C.  Budde,  Beitnige  zur  Krit. 
des  B.  Hioh.  1876.  Giesebrecht,  see  above,  p.  151.  S.  Cox, 
Commentary  with  translation,  1880.  G.  L.  Studer,  Bas  Bnch 
Hioh  ilhers.  u.  krit.  erldutei't,  1881.  G.  Bateson  Wright, 
The  Booh  of  Joh.  A  new  crit.  rev.  transl.  into  Ejiglish,  1883. 
G.  G.  Bradley,  Lectnres  on  Joh,  1887.  E.  Reuss,  Hioh,  1888. 
Saadiah,  Bas  Buch  Hioh  iihersetzt  u.  erkldrt,  von  J.  Cohn, 
Altona,  1889.  W.  Volck  in  Bie  Poet,  Hagiographa,  vol.  vii. 
of  Stracli-Zochler'' s  Xommentar,  1889.  The  Commentary  of 
Prof.  S.  Lee,  Lond.,  1837,  ought  not  to  be  forgotten. 

Monographs  on  passages  of  Job  abound,  especially  on 
chap.  xix.  25-27,  by  Kosegarten,  1815  ;  Stickel,  1832  ;  H.  Ewald, 
in  Zeller's  Theol.  Jahrh.,  1843  ;  Kostlin,  1846  ;  F.  Konig,  1855; 
Hoelemann,  in  his  Bihelstudlen,  1859  ;  S.  Oettli,  Hioh  und 
Faust,  1888  ;  Graf  von  Baudissin,  Transl,  Antiq,  Arah,  Lihri 
lohi  qu(S  s^ipersunt  nunc  prim,  edita,  1870  ;  K.  Budde,  on 
Job  xxvii.,  xxviii.,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  A.  T.  Wissenschaft,  1882. 
A  general  view  of  the  book  is  given  in  C.  H.  H.  "Wright's 
Bihlical  Essays,  1886  ;  as  also  in  A.  W.  Momerie's  Bcfects  of 
Modern  Christianity  and  other  Sermons,  1883,  a  considerable 
part  of  which  is  devoted  to  an  analysis  of  Job  ;  T.  K.  Cheyne's 
Joh  and  Solomon,  or  the  Wisdom  of  the  Old  Testament,  1887, 
discusses  Job,  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes,  etc.    See  Appendix. 

§  2.  The  Psalms. 

1.  The  Psalter  is  in  Hebrew  termed  D'^n];!  °i^p,  Booh 

of  Praises  or  Hymns.     The  name  is  not  altogether 

suitable,  for  the  majority  of  the  poems  in  the  book 

are   rather  prayers,  riipp]^^  than  praises.     Moreover 


THE  PSALMS,  153 

some  of  them  were  specially  designed  as  hymns  in- 
tended to  be  accompanied  by  the  harp,  for  which 
y\'0\p  is  the  more  appropriate  expression,  from  whence 
the  Greek  i/^aX/xot,  from  if/dWetv,  and  xl/oKT-qpiov,  denoting 
primarily  the  instrument,  and  then  the  collection  of 
psalms.  In  Luke  xx.  42  the  expression  is  used, 
I^l/3Xo<;  ij/aX/jiojv. 

2.  The  Psalter  was  in  Hebrew  divided  into  five 
books  (duly  given  in  the  Revised  Version)  in  order  to 
correspond  with  the  five  several  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch (see  pp.  73,  74).  The  first  book  includes 
Ps.  i.-xli.,  all  Psalms  traditionally  supposed  to  be 
Davidic  or  Solomonic.  Ps.  i.  is  introductory,  and  has 
no  superscription.  Ps.  ii.  is  also  without  a  title,  as 
well  as  Ps.  X.  The  latter  was  probably  the  conclusion 
of  Ps.  ix.,  with  which  it  is  united  in  the  LXX. 
Ps.  xxxiii.  has  no  heading  in  the  Hebrew;  but  in 
the  LXX.  it  is  ascribed  to  David.  The  Psalms 
contained  in  the  First  Book  generally  employ  Jehovah 
as  the  name  of  the  Divine  Being.  II.  The  Second 
Book  is  composed  of  Ps.  xlii.-lxxii.,  and  is  a  collection 
of  Elohistic  Psalms,  i.e.  Psalms  in  which  Elohim 
(God)  is  mainly  used  as  the  Divine  appellation.  Of 
these,  Ps.  xlii.-xlix.  were  composed  by  "  the  sons  of 
Korah."  Ps.  xliii.  has  no  superscription,  and  was, 
no  doubt,  originally  a  part  of  the  preceding  psalm. 
To  the  Korahite  collection  a  single  psalm  of  Asaph 
is  appended  (Ps.  1.),  after  which  follow  a  number  of 
Elohistic  Psalms,  generally  ascribed  to  Da\^d  (Ps.  li.- 
Ixxi.).  Pss.  Ixvi.  and  Ixvii.  have  not  the  name  David 
in  their  superscriptions,  although  the  LXX.  inserts 
the  name  of  David  in  the  latter  (Ixvii.).     The  collec- 


154  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

tion  of  Book  II.  closes  with  a  Solomonic  Psalm  (Ps. 
Ixxii.).  Two  Psalms  which  are  found  in  the  First 
Book  in  a  Jehovistic  form  (Ps.  xiv.  and  Ps.  xl.  13-17) 
reappear  in  the  Second  Book  in  an  Elohistic  form 
(Ps.  hii.  and  Ps.  Ixx.).  III.  The  Third  Book  contains 
Pss.  Ixxiii.-lxxxix.  inclusive.  Of  these  seventeen  Psalms, 
the  first  eleven  are  ascribed  to  Asaph;  four  to  the 
sons  of  Korah  (Pss.  Ixxxiv.,  Ixxxv.,  Ixxxvii.,  Ixxxviii.), 
the  last  (Ps.  Ixxxviii.)  being  ascribed  especially  to 
Heman.  Another  (Ps.  Ixxxvi.)  is  ascribed  to  David, 
and  one  to  Ethan  (Ps.  Ixxxix.).  The  collection  of 
Psalms  contained  in  the  Third  Book  must,  on  account 
of  Pss.  Ixxiv.  and  Ixxix.,  have  been  made  subsequently 
to  the  Exile.  lY.  The  Fourth  Book  of  the  Psalms 
comprises  also  seventeen  Psalms  (Pss.  xc.-cvi.).  Most 
of  these  are  by  anonymous  writers.  The  Hebrew 
superscriptions  assign  Ps.  xc.  to  Moses,  and  Ps.  ci.-ciii. 
to  David.  But  the  LXX.  ascribe  eleven  of  the  Psalms 
contained  in  this  Book  to  David,  leaving  only  five 
anonymous  Psalms  (xcii.,  c,  cii.,  cv.,  cvii.).  V.  The 
Fifth  Book  comprehends  the  remaining  Psalms  from 
Ps.  cvii.  to  the  end  of  the  Psalter.  Fifteen  of  these 
Psalms  are  ascribed  in  the  Hebrew  to  David,  including 
four  of  the  Psalms  known  as  "Songs  of  Ascents" 
(Pss.  cxxii.,  cxxiv.,  cxxxi.,  cxxxiii.).  Ps.  cxxvii.  is 
ascribed  to  Solomon.  In  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  the 
four  mentioned  "Songs  of  Ascents"  are  not  assigned 
to  David.  All  the  other  Psalms  in  the  book  marked 
as  Davidic  in  the  superscriptions  are  ascribed  to 
the  same  source  by  the  LXX.  and  Yulgate.  One 
of  these  (Ps.  cxxxviii.)  is  in  the  LXX.  ascribed 
to  Haggai  and  Zechariah.     Ps.  cxxxvii.  is  similarly 


THE  PSALMS.  155 

ascribed  in  the  LXX.  to  David  and  Jeremiah ;  and 
Pss.  cxlvi.,  cxlvii.  (which  latter  is  divided  into  two 
Psalms  in  the  LXX.)  with  Ps.  cxlviii.  are  likewise 
assigned  to  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  Similarly  in  the 
Syriac  (Peshitto  Version)  several  Psalms  belonging 
to  the  book  are  said  to  refer  to  the  prophets  of  the 
Eestoration,  or  to  their  contemporaries,  Zerubbabel, 
Joshua  the  high  priest,  and  Nehemiah.  The  Vulgate 
agrees  with  the  LXX.  in  making  Haggai  and  Zech- 
ariah the  authors  of  Ps.  cxlvi.  The  Vulgate  considers 
Ps.  cxi.  to  refer  to  the  Restoration  which  took  place 
under  those  prophets. 

The  division  into  fiv^e  books  was  made  with  the 
object  of  assimilating  the  Psalter  to  the  Pentateuch 
(see  pp.  73,  74).  An  attempt  seems  to  have  been  made 
to  compare  also  the  number  of  the  verses  found 
in  the  Psalter  and  Pentateuch.  Geiger  mentions  a 
Baraitha,  or  authoritative  tradition,  in  which  the 
number  of  the  verses  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalter 
and  Chronicles,  were  made  nearly  to  coincide,  the 
numbers  being  put  respectively  at  5,888,  5,881,  and 
5,889.  The  verse  division  of  the  Massoretes  for  the 
three  books  amounts  respectively  to  5,845,  2,527,  and 
1,656. 

It  is  evident  that  those  who  arranged  the  Psalter 
in  its  present  form  wished  each  of  the  five  books  to 
close  with  a  doxology.  This  explains  the  reason  why 
the  Fourth  Book  was  made  to  close  with  Ps.  cvi., 
and  the  Fifth  Book  to  open  with  Ps.  cvii.,  although 
the  latter  Psalm  is  closely  connected  by  the  nature 
of  its  contents  with  the  two  Psalms  which  imme- 
diately precede  it.      A  special  formal  doxology  was 


156  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

not  considered  to  be  required  at  the  close  of  the  Fifth 
Book,  inasmuch  as  that  book  closes  as  it  were  with 
"pillars  of  smoke"  of  the  incense  of  thanksgiving. 
The  doxology  at  the  close  of  Book  TV.  (Ps.  c\i.  48) 
seems,  from  a  comparison  of  the  parallel  passage  in 
1  Chron.  xvi.  36,  to  end  with  a  rubrical  direction  for 
the  employment  of  that  Psalm  in  public  worship. 

3.  The  number  of  Psalms  contained  in  the  Psalter 
has  been  variously  estimated.  The  printed  Hebrew 
text  has  150.  The  LXX.  have  the  same  total, 
although  they  unite  certain  Psalms  (Ps.  ix.  with  x. 
and  cxiv.  with  cxv.),  and  divide  others  into  two 
(Ps.  cxvi.  and  Ps.  cxh-ii.),  so  that  the  numbering  of 
the  Psalms  does  not  correspond.  An  additional  Psalm 
is  added  at  the  end  in  the  LXX.,  expressly  marked 
as  "  outside  the  number."  In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
the  number  assigned  to  the  Psalms  is  147,  "corre- 
sponding to  the  years  of  our  father  Jacob"  [Shahh. 
xvi.  1).  That  number  was  obtained  by  combining 
together  certain  Psalms^  and  in  old  MSS.  the  number 
of  the  Psalms  is  often  less  than  150,  Ps.  xliii.  being 
combined  with  Ps.  xlii.,  etc. 

4.  Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  super- 
scriptions. In  the  Hebrew  only  thirty-four  Psalms 
are  vWthout  such  titles.  The  titles  in  some  cases 
mark  the  liturgical  character  of  special  Psalms,  e.g. 
"  For  the  chief  musician,"  or  "  precentor,"  etc.,  or 
their  musical  character,  as  Maskil,  Shiggaion,  etc. 
The  titles  in  other  cases  occasionally  specify  the 
instruments  of  music  by  which  the  Psalms  were 
intended  to  be  accompanied,  and  the  measure  and 
melody  to  be  employed.     In  other  cases  they  specify 


TEE  PSALMS.     '  157 

the  occasions  on  which  the  Psalms  were  employed, 
e.g.  "songs  of  degrees,"  or  "ascents,"  probably  de- 
signed for  the  pilgrims  going  up  to  Jerusalem.  The 
superscriptions  also  indicate  the  contents  of  the 
Psalms  themselves,  whether  songs  of  praise  or  of 
prayer.  In  many  cases  several  of  these  objects  are 
combined  in  the  titles.  Still  often  er  the  titles  state 
the  supposed  authors  of  the  Psalms,  and  occasionally 
the  occasions  on  which  they  were  written.  Seventy- 
three  Psalms  are  ascribed  to  David,  thirty-seven  of 
which  are  found  in  the  First  Book. 

5.  Modern  critics  do  not  generally  coincide  with 
the  statements  put  forth  in  the  titles  (whether  of  the 
Hebrew  or  LXX.  Psalter)  as  to  the  authorship  of 
the  Psalms.  Some  of  these  critics  take  an  extreme 
view,  and  assert  (as  Peuss  and  Kuenen)  that  no 
Davidic  Psalm  is  to  be  found  in  the  Psalter.  Ewald 
admitted  only  the  Davidic  authorship  of  eleven,  Hitzig 
of  fourteen.  According  to  Delitzsch,  forty-four  out 
of  the  seventy-three  are  Davidic.  Other  critics  (as 
Hitzig,  Olshausen,  Keuss,  etc.)  maintain  that  many 
of  the  Psalms  are  of  the  Maccabean  era;  but  such 
extreme  views  are  not  generally  entertained.  Some 
of  the  Psalms  are  undoubtedly  post-exilian;  a  few, 
such  as  Pss.  xliv.,  Ixxiv.,  Ixxxiii.,  may  be  Maccabean, 
but  the  latter  point  is  doubtful.  The  number  of 
Messianic  Psalms  has  been  much  exaggerated  by  the 
older  commentators,  and  has  been  unduly  lessened 
by  the  later  critics.  The  most  important  Messianic 
Psalms  are  the  ii.,  xvi.,  xxii.,  Ixxii.,  and  ex.  The 
New  Testament  wi-iters  recognize  decided  Messianic 
elements  in  Pss.  viii.,  xl.,  xlv.,  Ixviii.,  Ixix.,  Ixxxix,  xci., 


158  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

and  cxviii.  The  Messiah  is  often  identified  with  His 
people,  and  what  refers  to  them  refers  to  Him  also. 
Moreover,  prophecies  which  primarily  refer  to  the 
Messiah  are  often  applicable  to  all  the  people  of  God. 
The  seven  Psalms  known  ecclesiastically  as  the  seven 
Penitential  Psalms,  are  the  vi.,  xxxii.,  xxxviii.,li.,  cii., 
cxxx.,  and  cxhii.  The  theology  of  the  Psalter  is  the 
same  as  that  of  the  prophets;  and  as  the  Psalms 
were  used  in  the  congi-egation  as  well  as  in  private 
devotion,  they  present  us  with  a  vivid  picture  of  the 
theology  which  prevailed  among  the  pious  portion  of 
the  people  of  Israel. 

6.  The  Targum  on  the  Psalms  must  on  the  whole  be  regarded 
as  the  oldest  commentary  on  the  book.  That  Targum,  how- 
ever, is  in  its  present  shape  younger  than  the  Syriac  Peshitto 
Version.  This  question  has  been  discussed  by  Noldeke,  and 
later  by  Friedr.  Baethgen  in  his  Untersuclmngen  uber  die 
Psalmen  7iach  der  PescMtto,  1878,  and  in  his  articles  on  Der 
textkr.  Wert  der  alien  Uelerss.  z.  d.  Ps,  in  the  Jahrh.  f.  ijrot. 
Theol.,  1882.  Several  of  the  Fathers  wrote  on  the  Psalms, 
as  Hilary,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine  ;  and  Jewish  com- 
mentaries of  great  value  are  those  of  Eashi,  Ibn  Ezra,  and 
D.  Kimchi.  Dr.  Schiller-Szinessy  has  edited  a  portion  of  the 
latter  (Book  I.)  at  the  Cambridge  Press.  Numerous  are  the 
writers  on  the  Psalms  during  the  Reformation  era,  such  as 
Luther,  Calvin,  whose  commentary,  newly  edited  by  Tholuck 
in  1836,  has  not  lost  its  value  ;  Aretius  Felinus  (M.  Butzer), 
1526  ;  E,  Riidinger,  1580.  The  notes  of  Fr.  Vatabl^,  of  Paris, 
are  to  be  found  in  R.  Stephanus,  Bill.,  1557,  and  in  the 
Critici  Sacri,  which  contain  also  many  notes  of  value  from 
other  commentaries.  In  post-reformation  times  appeared 
the  commentaries  of  Mart.  Geier,  1668,  2  vols.,  4to,  folio 
1709;  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Adn.  pliil.-exeg.  in  Ilagiog.,  1720; 
H.  Venema,   6   vols.,  1762-1767  ;    C.  A.   Crusius,  Hyjjomne' 


THE  PSALMS,,  159 

viata,  1764-1778  ;  Eosenmllller,  Scholia,  3  vols.,  1798,  2nd 
ed.,  1821.  The  modem  school  may  be  said  to  commence 
with  de  Wette's  Commentary,  1811,  5th  edit,  by  G.  Baur,  1856; 
Stier,  1834-1836  ;  F.  Hitzig,  1835,  1836,  new  edition  1863-5  ; 
E.  W.  Hengstenberg,  1842-7,  2te  Aufl.,  1849-52,  translated  into 
EngHsh,  T.  and  T.  Clark ;  H.  Ewald,  1835,  Dichter  cles  alien 
Bundes,  I.,  neue  Ausarb.,  1866,  English  translation  by  John- 
ston, 1881,  hrit.  Comm.,  1882  ;  H.  Hupfeld,  1855-62,  2te  Ausg. 
by  Riehm.,  Ste  Ausg.  by  Nowack,  1888;  A.  Tholuck,  practical, 
2te  Aufl.,  1873  ;  J.  Olshausen,  1853 ;  E.  Boehl,  Zwolf  Mess. 
Fsalmen,  1862  ;  Franz  Delitzsch,  1859,  4te  Aufl.,  1883,  1884, 
translated  into  English  and  specially  revised  by  the  author 
(3  vols.),  Hodder  and  Stoughton,  1887-1890  ;  J.  J.  S.  Perowne, 
The  Book  of  Psalms,  2  vols.,  7th  edit.,  1890  ;  A.  C.  Jennings 
and  W.  H.  Lowe,  The  Psalms  with  critical  notes,  2nd  edit., 
1884-5  ;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Booh  of  Psalms,  transl.lSSi  ;  Comm,, 
1 888 ;  Origin  and  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Psalter  (Bampton 
Lectures),  1891 ;  John  Forbes  (Prof,  at  Aberdeen),  The  Book 
of  Psalms,  and  his  Studies  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  1888  ; 
Graetz,  Krit.  Comm.,  1882  ;  Ed.  Eeuss,  Poesie  lyrique,  1879; 
Hirsch,  Die  Ps.  iibersetz.  u.  erkl,  1882  ;  F.  W.  Schultz,  in 
Strack  and  Zockler's  Comm.,  1888. 

The  monographs  written  upon  special  Psalms,  or  on  subjects 
connected  with  the  book,  are  too  numerous  to  be  mentioned 
here  ;  but  it  may  be  well  to  note  that  Giesebrecht  has  written 
on  Book  II.-V.  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  A.  T.  W.  for  1881 ;  Carl 
Ehrt,  Ahfassungszeit  u.  Ahschhiss  des  Psalters  (jlher  3Iacca- 
bderjmilmen')  hist.  krit.  untersucht,  1869  ;  T.  K.  Abbott  on  the 
Alphaletical  Arrayigement  of  the  Ninth  and  Tenth  Psalms, 
in  Hermathena,  Dublin,  1889.  Baethgen's  articles  on  the 
Commentary  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir 
A.  T.  W.  for  1885,  1886,  and  1887  are  of  special  interest.  So 
also  the  article  of  R.  8 mend  in  St^idien  und  Eritihen  for  1888, 
Bishop  Alexander  (of  Derry),  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Witness 
of  the  Psalms  to  Christ  and  Christianity, Sid  edit, i'e\ised,  1890; 
Bottcher's  notes  in  Aehrenlese  z.  A.  T.,  ii,  1864,  are  important; 
and  on  Ps.  Ixviii.  in  his  ProVen  A.  T.  SchrifterUdrung ,  1833. 
In  the  Studia  Bihlica,  vol.  ii.,  Clar.  Press,  Oxford,  1890,  Ad. 


160  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

Neubauer  has  written  on  The  Authorship  and  the  Titles  of 
the  Psalms  according  to  early  Jewish  Authorities. 

Numerous  works  have  been  published  on  the  form  of 
Hebrew  poetry.  Among  these  may  be  noted  Bishop  Lowth's 
De  sacra  poesi  ebr.,  often  re-edited,  as  by  Michaelis,  1777  ;  by 
Kosenmiiller,  1815  ;  and  even  translated  into  English.  Ewald, 
Hupfeld,  and  other  scholars  have  written  on  the  same  subject. 
Among  the  latest  writers  are  E.  Meier,  1853  ;  H.  Steiner, 
Ueher  heir.  Poesie,  1873  ;  G.  Bickell,  Carm.  V.T.  vietrice, 
1882,  etc. 

§  3.  The  Book  of  Proverbs. 

1.  The  Book  of  Proverbs  bears  the  superscription 
(Prov.  i.  1)  of  "  The  Proverbs  (^^^P)  of  Solomon,  son 
of  David,  king  of  Israel."  The  word  ^^*'^  signifies 
a  rejyresentation  or  similitude,  and  is  not  properly 
translated  as  in  the  LXX.  by  irapoLfxiai  SaXw/xcovos  or 
in  the  Vulgate,  Proverbia  Saloinonis.  Though,  how- 
ever, properly  "  similitudes,"  the  word  is  also  in  this 
book  applied  to  sententious  sentences. 

I.  The  book  opens  vsdth  w^hat  may  be  described  as 
a  preface  setting  forth  the  general  character  of  its 
contents  (chap.  i.  1-7).  II.  This  preface  is  succeeded 
by  a  number  of  introductory  discourses  in  praise  of 
wisdom,  specially  designed  for  young  men  (chap.  i.  8- 
ix.  inclusive),  the  whole  series  forming  a  poem  of 
great  merit.  III.  This  is  succeeded  by  a  collection 
of  sentences,  bearing  the  superscription  of  "  The 
proverbs  of  Solomon,"  r\t:hf  h^lp  (chap.  x.  1).  This 
portion,  which  includes  chap.  x.  1-xxii.  16,  has  been 
subdivided  by  Ewald  into  five  parts,  beginning  respec- 
tively chap.  X.  1,  xiii.  1,  xv.  20,  xvii.  25,  xix.  20. 
The  proverbs  in  this  collection  appear  to  be  the  oldest 
in  form,  and  consist  for  the  most  part  of  two  contrasted 


THE  PROVERBS.  161 

sentences.  IV.  A  new  section,  though  without  a 
formal  superscription,  begins  at  chap.  xxii.  17,  with 
the  words,  "  Incline  thine  ear,  and  hear  the  words 
of  the  wise,"  CPPC)  ^i?^"?.  That  short  section  is  a 
kind  of  appendix  to  the  preceding,  and  closes  at 
chap.  xxiv.  22.  V.  It  is  followed  by  another  appendix, 
which  is  preceded  by  the  formula :  "  These  are  also 
(sayings)  of  the  wise,"  or  literally,  "Even  these 
(belong)  to  the  wise,"  D^PPD*?  nks-D3.  This  supple- 
mentary appendix  embraces  chap.  xxiv.  23-34.  Each 
of  these  two  appendices  contain  a  striking  parabolic 
poem.  That  which  is  found  in  the  former  describes 
the  evil  effects  of  wine  and  drunkenness  (chap,  xxiii. 
29-35) :  that  which  occurs  in  the  latter  paints  a 
vivid  picture  of  the  sluggard  and  the  results  of  his 
slothfulness  (chap,  xxiv,  30-34).  VI.  The  next  portion 
of  the  book,  consisting  of  chap,  xxv.-xxix.,  contains 
another  collection  of  the  proverbs  of  Solomon,  begin- 
ning with  the  formula,  r\t:h^  hftp  n^.X  D5,  "These 
also  are  proverbs  of  Solomon  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah  copied  out"  (chap.  xxv.  1).  "The  men  of 
Hezekiah"  were  probably  a  college  of  scribes,  organized 
by  that  monarch  for  the  purpose  of  the  preservation 
and  editing  of  the  sacred,  writings  of  the  nation. 
The  college  probably  existed  under  that  name  for 
a  long  time  subsequent  to  Hezekiah's  reign.  This 
portion  of  the  book  is  rich  in  emblematic  sentences 
containing  three,  four  or  five  lines  each,  and  also 
includes  a  parabolic  poem  (chap,  xxvii.  23-27).  These 
collections  of  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  and  of  the 
sayings  of  the  wise,  are  followed  by  three  remarkable 
appendices  which  conckide  the  work.     VII.  The  first 

11 


162  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

of  these  (chap,  xxx.)  contains  "  the  words  of  Agur 
the  son  of  Jakeh."  VIII.  The  second  "the  words 
of  king  Lemuel"  (chap.  xxxi.  1-9).  The  word  ^'^'Qj 
rendered  in  the  prophets  "  burden,"  "oracle,"  occurs 
in  both  these  superscriptions,  in  the  first  with  the 
ai'ticle.  Its  occurrence  creates  considerable  difficulties, 
for  it  may  be  regarded  also  as  a  proper  name.  Nothing 
whatever  is  really  know  n  about  either  Agur  or  Lemuel, 
but  numerous  conjectures  have  been  made  which  can- 
not here  be  summarised.  IX.  The  last  chapter  of 
the  book  (chap.  xxx.  10-31)  also  contains  a  didactic 
poem  of  great  beauty,  in  praise  of  a  good  wife.  Each 
of  the  twenty-two  verses  commences  in  due  order  with 
a  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and  the  poem  has 
been  well  termed  "a  golden  alphabet." 

2.  There  are  no  decisive  reasons  to  compel  us  to 
call  in  question  the  Solomonic  authorship  of  the 
collection  of  proverbs  ascribed  to  him.  The  whole 
book  was  in  ancient  times  regarded  as  the  work  of 
Solomon.  The  phenomena  of  the  book,  however,  prove 
it  to  be  of  various  authorship,  although  we  can  see  no 
objection  to  the  view  that  Solomon  wrote  the  proverbs 
ascribed  to  him.  It  is  certainly  a  groundless  assump- 
tion that  a  writer  or  collector  of  such  proverbs  as  are 
contained  in  the  first  collection  could  not  have  made 
a  second  collection  of  a  somewhat  difierent  character. 
It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  the  text  of  the 
LXX.  contains  proverbs  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  in  some  places  in  that  version  the  chap- 
ters are  arranged  in  difierent  order.  Many  repetitions 
are  found  in  the  book ;  whole  proverbs  are  repeated 
word  for  word,  or  with  slight  alterations  not  afiecting 


THE  PROVERBS,  163 

the  sense,  e.g,  chap.  xiv.  12  reappears  at  chap.  xvi.  25; 
chap.  xxi.  19  reappears  at  chap.  xxv.  24  ;  chap, 
xviii.  8  in  chap.  xxvi.  22;  chap.  xxii.  3  in  chap. 
xxvii.  12;  chap.  xx.  16  in  chap,  xxvii.  13.  Other 
proverbs  are  repeated  with  alterations  and  additions, 
e.g.  chap.  xvi.  2  in  xxi.  2  ;  chap.  xv.  8  in  chap.  xxi.  27 ; 
chap.  xi.  13,  in  chap.  xx.  19,  etc. 

3.  Melanchtlaon  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Proverbs, 
1555,  but  the  Reformation  period  is  not  rich  in  commentaries 
on  the  book.  Important  still  is  Martin  Geier's  ProverMa 
enveleata,  1669,  2nd  edit.,  1725.  A.  Schiiltens'  commentary, 
1748,  is  massive,  but  needs  to  be  used  with  caution  ;  latest 
edition  by  Teller,  1769.  Umbreit,  Philol.  krit.  u.  ijMlos. 
Komm.,  1826.  Eosenmtiller,  ScJiolia,  1829.  Ewald,  Die  Salo- 
monischen  Schrifteri,  2te  Ausg.,  1867.  Bertheau,  1847,  newly 
worked  up  by  Nowack,  1883  ;  Elster,  1858  ;  Hitzig,  1858  ; 
Moses  Stuart  (the  American  scholar),  1852.  Zockler,  in 
Lange's  Bihehverli,  1867  ;  translated  into  English,  and  edited 
with  additions  by  Dr.  Aiken,  in  the  American  edition  of  that 
work,  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1869.  Franz  Delitzsch,  1873  ;  Kohling, 
1879.  Ibn  Ezra's  (?)  Commentary  on  the  book  has  been 
edited  by  Prof.  Driver,  1880.  The  3Iidrash  Mislile  has  been 
translated  into  German  by  Aug.  Wiinsche,  in  his  valuable 
Bihliotheca  Ralh.,  1885.  Herm.  Deutzsch,  Die  Sprilche 
Salomons  nacli  der  Auffassung  im  Talmud  u.  Midrasch,  1885- 
1886  ;  Henri  Bois,  La  poesie  gnomiq^ue  cliez  les  Hebreux  et  les 
Grecs,  Salomon  et  Theognis^  Toulouse,  1886  ;  Ant.  J.  Baum- 
gartner,  Etude  cvitique  snr  le  texte  du  livre  des  Proverhes^ 
Leipzig,  1890  ;  H.  L.  Strack,  Comm.  in  Strack  and  ZocUer's 
Co  mm.,  1888. 

The  monograph  of  H.  F.  Mllhlau,  Be  j)'''ov.  quce  dicuntur 
Agicri  et  Lemiielis  orig,  atgue  indole,  1869,  and  Graetz's 
Exegetische  Studien  zu  den  Salom.  Sjri'uchen,  in  his  Monat- 
schrift  filr  Gesch.  u.  Wiss.  d.  Judenthums,  1884,  are  both 
important.  T.  K.  Cheyne  in  Joh  ami  Solomon  (see  p.  152)  ; 
S.  C.  Malan,  Original  Notes  on  the  Book  of  Proverbs^  vol.  1 


164  TEE  POETICAL   BOOKS. 

(chap,  i.-x.),  1890  ;  A.  Eahlf,  Greg.  Ahulfarag,  genannt  Bar 
Ehhroyo,  Anmerhtingeii,  zu  den  Salomonischen  Schriften, 
1887  ;   C.  G.  Montefiore,  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Beview,  1890 

§    4.    ECCLESIASTES. 

1.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  in  the  Hebrew  canon 
constitutes  one  of  the  five  Megilloth,  and  was  read  at 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  In  Hebrew  the  book  is 
termed  Koheleth  (H^n'p),  which  is  translated  by  the 
LXX.  'EKKX-jyo-tao-TvJs,  or  the  Preacher,  Latinized  in 
the  "Vulgate  as  Ecclesiastes,  and  adopted  generally 
as  its  title.  The  meaning  of  the  word  has  been  much 
disputed.  It  is  probably  a  feminine  form  used  to 
intensify  the  meaning,  and  several  proper  names  of 
the  same  formation  occur  in  the  later  books  as  names 
of  men  (Neh.  vii.  57 ;  Ezra  ii.  57).  In  one  passage 
of  this  book  (chap.  vii.  27)  the  word  is  treated  as 
feminine,  but  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew  there  is 
probably  erroneous.  In  all  other  passages  the  word 
is  construed  as  masculine.  The  writer  gives  his 
experience  in  the  person  of  Solomon,  but  he  does  not 
pretend  to  be  really  Solomon.  The  very  mode  in 
which  the  writer  refers  to  Solomon  shows  clearly 
that  the  author  did  not  wish  to  impose  on  his  readers. 
Solomon  is  spoken  of  in  chap.  i.  12-18  as  one  who 
had  already  passed  away  from  the  world.  The  name, 
consequently,  was  assumed  by  the  writer  not  as  a 
*'  pious  fraud,"  but  as  a  legitimate  literary  de\dce, 
which  was  made  use  of  also  in  later  times  by  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  The  statements  made 
in  the  epilogue  have  also  been  regarded  by  many  as 


ECCLESIASTES.  .    165 

containing  a  distinct  disavowal  of  the  Solomonic 
authorship.  So  also  the  allusions  in  the  book  to 
complaints  of  oppression  and  so  forth.  The  book  was, 
however,  regarded  in  ancient  times  as  the  work  of 
Solomon;  although  there  are  indications  in  the  Targum, 
Talmud,  and  elsewhere,  which  show  that  the  Jewish 
wise  men  were  not  unanimous  on  that  point.  The 
Solomonic  authorship  has,  however,  been  defended  by 
critics  of  mark,  though  late  critical  opinion  is  almost 
unanimous  against  it.  The  language  of  the  work 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  times  alluded  to  prove 
it  to  have  been  composed  in  the  last  century  of  the 
Persian  period  (e.g.  440-336). 

The  form  of  a  Solomonic  autobiography,  which 
has  been  assumed  by  the  writer,  extends  only 
to  the  first  two  chapters.  In  those  chapters  the 
writer  demonstrates  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  things, 
and  shows  there  is  no  real  progress  (chap.  i.  1-11). 
He  then  recounts  his  personal  discovery  of  the  vanity 
of  wisdom  (chap.  i.  12-18),  of  the  vanity  of  pleasure 
and  riches  (chap.  ii.  1-11),  for  the  end  of  the  wise  and 
the  fool  is  alike  (chap.  ii.  12-17),  and  riches  though 
gathered  by  toil  are  little  worth  (ii.  18-23).  He 
finally  depicts  the  conditions  necessary  for  cheerfulness 
(ii.  24-26).  In  chap.  iii.  1-15,  he  proves  that  God  is 
the  avenger  of  all  things,  and  man  is  powerless  before 
Him.  He  next  shows  (iii.  16-22)  the  wickedness  of 
men,  compares  them  to  the  beasts  that  perish,  and 
describes  the  misery  caused  by  oppression  (iv.  1-3), 
rivalry,  and  toil  (iv.  4-6),  the  advantages  of  companion- 
ship (iv.  7-12),  the  vanity  common  to  political  life 
(iv.  13-16),  and  exhibited  in  religious  services  (iv.  17- 


166  THE   POETICAL  BOOKS. 

V.  6).  The  vanity  of  riches  under  various  circum- 
stances is  pointed  out  (v.  7-vi.  6).  The  vanity  of  de- 
sire itself  (vi.  7-9),  is  shown,  for  man  in  himself  is 
powerless  (vi.  10-12).  Chap.  vii.  1-24  contains  pro- 
verbs concerning  things  that  ought  to  be  preferred  by 
the  wise,  and  speaks  of  the  practical  advantage  of 
wisdom,  even  under  the  uncertain  affairs  of  man. 
The  wicked  woman  is  described  in  chap.  vii.  25-29 ; 
the  benefit  of  wisdom  in  the  days  of  oppression  and 
doubt,  trust  in  God  is  inculcated  (chap.  viii.  1-15), 
the  writer  again  reverting  to  the  thought  of  human 
ignorance  and  powerlessness  (chap.  viii.  16-ix.  2). 
Death  and  Hades  are  darkly  spoken  of  in  chap.  ix. 
3-12.  A  little  parable  proving  the  utiUty  of  wisdom 
is  given  without  comment  in  chap.  ix.  13-18.  Next 
follow  proverbs  on  the  value  of  wisdom  and  tke 
results  of  folly  (chap,  x,  1-15),  and  on  the  misery^  of 
a  land  under  a  foolish  king.  Benevolence  is  shown 
to  be  wise,  and  the  duty  of  enjoying  the  present  is 
spoken  of  in  chap.  xi.  1-8.  The  writer  finally  bursts 
forth  into  a  song  which  describes  "  the  Days  of  Life, 
and  the  Days  of  Death  "  in  chap.  xi.  9-xii.  7.  This 
poem  has  been  less  fitly  supposed  to  be  an  allegorical 
poem  of  "the  days  of  youth  and  old  age."  The 
literal  interpretation  is,  however,  preferable.  The 
epilogue  at  the  end  of  the  book  (chap.  xii.  8-14) 
is  supposed  by  many  critics  to  have  been  written  by 
a  different  author.  The  supposition  is  by  no  means 
necessary.  A  day  of  judgment  for  every  man  is  the 
solemn  truth  with  which  the  Book  of  Koheleth  closes. 
Dark  as  is  the  standpoint  from  which  the  book  is 
wi^itten,  light  seems  to  break  forth  at  its  close.     The 


ECCLESIASTES.  ^  67 

book  recognizes  human  ignorance  more  fully  than  any 
other  work  in  the  sacred  canon.  But  it  recognizes 
also  that  there  is  a  judgment  coming  which  will 
finally  dissipate  the  darkness.  The  book  may  thus 
be  regarded  as  a  cry  for  light,  suitably  stirred  up  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  ever  broods  over  the  chaos  of 
man's  ignorance,  and  designed  fitly  to  precede  the 
New  Testament  revelation  of  the  Light  of  the  world 
and  the  Victor  over  the  grave. 

2.  The  commentary  of  Jerome  on  the  book  is  still  worthy  of 
notice.  Of  the  more  modern  commentaries  may  be  mentioned 
those  of  Mercer,  1573  ;  Drusius,  1635_;  M.  Geier,  1668;  van  der 
Palm,  Eccl.  phil.et  crit.  ilhtst.,  1784;  Zirkel,  Untersuchungen, 
1792;  Knobe],  1836;  Herzfeld,  1838;  Hwald,  Biehfer  des  alt. 
Bvndes,i\.,  1867  ;  A.  Heiligstedt, Cif^mw.  gram.  hist,  crit.,  1848, 
in  Maurer's  Comm.  in  V.  T. ;  Vaihinger,  1858  ;  Hengstenberg, 
1859,  English  translation  by  D.  W.  Simon,  published  by  T.  and 
T.  Clark,  1860  ;  Franz  Delitzsch,1875  ;  Kleinert,  18G4;  Zockler, 
1868,  English  translation  with  additions  byi  Professor  Taylor 
Lewis,  1872;  Graetz,  1871;  Nowack,  1883  ;  K.  Smend,  1889. 

Important  English  commentaries  on  the  book  are  those  of 
Theod.  Preston,  with  translation  of  Mendelssohn's  Comm.  1845; 
C.  D.  Ginsburg,  1861  ;  vS.  Cox,  ExpiKsltory  Lectures,  1867, 
new  edition  in  E.ryositovs  Bible,  1891 ;  T.  P.  Dale,  1873  ; 
Thos.  Tyler,  1874  ;  E.  H.  Plumptre,  1881  ;  C.  H.  H.  Wright, 
The  Booh  of  Koheleth  considered  in  reference  to  Modern  Crit. 
and  Modern  Pessimism,  with  crit.  and  gram,  comm.,  1883; 
T.*  K.  Cheyne,  in  Jol  and  Solomon,  1887  ;  G.  G.  Bradley, 
Lectures  on  Ecclesiastes,  1887  ;  Prof.  A.  W.  Momerie's  Ag- 
nosticism, 1884,  contains  an  exposition  of  Ecclesiastes.    See  A2)p. 

Important  monographs  on  the  book,  or  portions  thereof, 
are: — J.  S.  Bloch,  Ur sprung  u.  Entstehungszeit,  1872.  Ed. 
Boehl,  De  Aramaismis,  1860.  N.  J.  Linnarson,  Be  illo  cod. 
sac.  libro  qui  Koheleth  inscrih.  Qvast.,  Upsala,  1860.  D. 
Johnston,  Treatise  on  the  Authorship  of  Ecclesiastes,  1880. 
and  his  Exam,  of  Dr.  Plumptre'' s  Comm.  on  Eccl.,  1885.    Dr.C. 


168  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

Taylor,  Dirge  of  Colieleth,  1874.  Winzer,  Comm.  de  Koh 
xi.  9-xii.  7,  1818,  1819.  A.  Kohler,  Ueb.  d.  GrimdanscTiau- 
ungen  d.  B.,  1885.  E.  Bidder,  Kolieletlis  Stellung  znm  Unster- 
hlicJikeitsglanhen,  1875.  G.  Bickell,  Der  Prediger  uber  den 
Wert  des  Daseins,  1884.  E.  Kenan,  L'Ecclhiaste  traduit 
de  VH.  avec  une  Etiide,  etc.,  1882.  Klostermann,  Eecendon 
of  Wright's  Koheleth  in  Stitdien  u,  Kritiken  for  1885. 
H.  Gratz  in  Monatsschrift  filr  Judentum,  1885.  E.  Kautzsch, 
in  Ersch  und  Gruler,  II.,  Sect,  xxxviii.  p.  27  £f.  A.  Palm, 
Qoheleth  u.  die  nach-aristoteliselie  Philosojjhie,  1885,  and  Pie 
Qoheleth  Litteratur,  1886.  E.  Pfleiderer,  Pie  PMlosopTiie  des 
Herahlit  von  Ephesus,  1886  ;  of  this  work  pp.  255-288  are  on 
Qoheleth.  M.  Friedlander,  Age  and  AutliorsMpof  Ecclesiastes, 
in  Jewish  Qiiarterly  Pevieiv,  1889.  Seb.  Euringer  (Rom. 
Cath.),  Des  Masora-text  des  Koheleth  kritisch  untersucht, 
Leipzig,  1890, 

§  5.  The  Song  of  Songs. 

1.  The  Song  of  Songs  (On^D  y^,  LXX.  ao-/xa 
a(rjxaT(x)v)  is  now  generally  admitted  to  be  a  single 
poem  proceeding  from  a  single  author,  and  not  a 
collection  of  several  independent  poems,  as  was  for- 
merly maintained  by  some  critics.  It  is  dramatic  in 
form,  but  not  designed  for  the  stage,  though  probably 
originally  intended  to  be  sung  in  parts.  It  is  a  song 
in  which  is  described  the  triumph  of  true  and  virtuous 
love  over  impure  and  sensual  passion.  It  probably 
depicts  the  love  of  a  shepherd  towards  a  maiden 
betrothed  to  him,  who,  tempted  by  the  ladies  of  the 
royal  court,  and  by  Solomon  himself,  to  join  the  royal 
harem,  resisted  all  such  temptations,  and  was  finally 
praised  by  her  brothers  for  her  enduring  constancy. 
The  chorus  is  composed  of  the  daughters  of  Jerusalem. 
Solomon  himself  does  not  appear  in  the  poem  in  a 


TEE  SONG   OF  SONGS,  169 

favourable  light,  but  rather  as  the  tempter  of  the 
maiden;  and  the  language  of  the  poem  (chap.  vii. 
1-9),  with  which  fault  has  often  been  found  for  its 
coarseness  and  indelicacy,  is  not  intended  to  express 
the  sentiments  of  true  love,  but  of  sensual  passion. 
If  the  literal  meaning  be  admitted  to  be  that  primarily 
intended,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  language  is  capable 
of  being  interpreted  in  an  allegorical  signification,  and 
was  probably  intended  to  bear  such  a  secondary  mean- 
ing. Ps.  xlv.  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  prove  how  easy  is 
the  ascent  from  the  literal  sense  to  a  higher  and  allegori- 
cal. It  is  highly  probable,  too,  that  such  poems  were 
preserved  among  the  Sacred  Writings,  mainly  because 
of  this  very  fact,  that  they  were  susceptible  of  such  a 
higher  interpretation.  The  opinion  of  the  older  critics, 
that  the  Song  of  Songs  describes  dialogues  between 
Solomon  and  an  espoused  bride  (Solomon  and  Shula- 
mith),  is  untenable.  Shulamith  (n^D>1^)  is  not  the 
feminine  form  of  Solomon  ip'^P)^  but  is  identical 
with  ri''^J-1^,  a  Shunamite,  or  woman  of  Shunem  or 
Sunem.  The  word  only  occurs  in  chap.  vi.  13  (Heb. 
vii.  1).  The  LXX.  thus  rightly  explain  the  word 
[y]  iSowa/xtTts),  and  their  explanation  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  the  old  town  of  Shunem  is  now  called 
Sulam  (Arab.  Jja»). 

The  fact  that  the  writer  speaks  of  Tirzah  (vi.  4),  the 
royal  residence  of  the  kings  of  Israel  before  Samaria 
became  the  capital,  is  considered  in  favour  of  the  early 
composition  of  the  poem.  But  it  must  be  observed 
that  Tirzah  is  only  referred  to  as  a  beautifully  situated 
city,  and  not  as  a  capital;  and  in  preference  to 
Jerusalem  because  the  loved  one  was  from  Shunem, 


170  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

which  is  situated  in  that  direction.  The  poem  cannot 
have  been  much  later  than  the  Solomonic  era.  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  are  scholars  of 
eminence  who  maintain  still,  in  spite  of  the  general 
view  given  above,  that  the  poem  does  describe  a 
marriage  with  Solomon  of  a  bride  from  the  northern 
part  of  Israel,  so  that  the  question  cannot  be  con- 
sidered yet  as  finally  closed.  The  whole  poem  is 
replete  with  the  fragrance  of  country  life.  The  poet 
knew  Jerusalem  as  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  but 
his  whole  soul  was  filled  with  love  of  the  country. 
Whether  the  song  be  regarded  as  a  song  of  pure  love, 
or  as  a  marriage  song  composed  in  an  era  when  poly- 
gamy was  not  distinctly  condemned,  the  poem  is  in 
either  case  of  importance  from  a  didactic  point  of  view. 
The  impure  influences  of  city  life  were  even  then  lead- 
ing astray  many  into  debasing  immorality.  Immoral- 
ity even  in  the  Solomonic  period  was  nourished  by 
the  idolatry  which  was  frequently  winked  at,  if  not 
distinctly  patronised,  by  the  court  party,  and  too 
often  popular  in  both  Israel  and  Judah.  The  Song  of 
Songs  does  not,  however,  describe  marriage,  which  is 
only  viewed  as  something  in  the  future,  and  it  cannot 
be  regarded  as  a  poem  in  praise  of  monogamy.  The 
author  seems  to  have  belonged  to  a  northern  tribe. 
The  various  scenes  of  the  poem  are  marked  off  from 
one  another  by  the  recurrence  of  particular  phrases 
at  the  beginning  and  end  of  each  scene.  But  in 
many  details,  however,  there  is  room  for  wide  diflference 
of  opinion.  The  higher  sense  of  the  poem  has  been 
recognized  from  the  earliest  times,  but  it  has  suffered 
much   from   the   extravagances   of   the   mystic  com- 


THE  SONG   OF  SONGS.  171 

mentators.  The  Song  of  Songs  forms  one  of  the  five 
Megilloth,  and  is  read  annually  at  the  Feast  of  the 
Passover. 

2.  The  Song  of  Songs  is  nowhere  cited  in  the  New  Testament, 
nor  is  it  quoted  by  Philo.  The  allegorical  interpretation  cannot 
with  certainty  be  traced  back  earlier  than  Origen,  although 
once  introduced  it  has  stoutly  maintained  the  field.  The 
Jewish  interpreters  may  have  borrowed  their  ideas  on  that 
subject  from  the  Christians.  The  Targum  on  the  book  is  post- 
Talmudical,  and  the  Midrash  even  later.  The  latter  has  been 
translated  into  German  by  Dr.  A.  Wiinsche,  in  his  Bihl. 
Rallinica.  Portions  of  the  work  are  no  doubt  susceptible  of 
a  spiritual  interpretation.  The  commentary  of  Bernhard  of 
Clairvaux,  edited  in  German  by  Fernbacher,  with  preface  by 
Delitzsch  {Die  Beden  des  hell.  Bernhard  ilher  das  HoheJied'), 
is  a  good  specimen  of  this  interpretation,  as  also  is  Dr.  R.  F. 
Littledale's  commentary  on  the  book,  1869.  Rosenmiiller,  in 
his  Scholia,  1830  ;  Koster,  1839;  Hengstenberg,  1853  ;  H.  A. 
Hahn,  1852  ;  Hoelemann,  Bis  Krone  des  H.  L.,  1856,  are 
among  the  most  prominent  of  the  German  commentators  who, 
in  one  form  or  other,  have  upheld  the  allegorical  interpretation. 
More  critical  views  have  been  advanced  by  J.  G.  Herder, 
Lieder  der  Liele,  1778  ;  F.  W.  C.  Umbreit,  Lied  der  Liehe, 
2nd  edit.,  1828  ;  H.  Ewald,  Bas  H.  L.  Sal,  1826  ;  and  in  his 
BicMer  des  A.  B.,  ii.,  1867  ;  F.  Bottcher,  Bie  altesten  Buhne-, 
dichtungen,  1850 ;  C.  D.  Ginsburg,  Song  of  Songs,  with  hist, 
and  erit.  comm.^  1857 ;  Franz  Delitzsch,  2te  Ausg.,  1875 ;  F. 
Hitzig,  1855  ;  0.  Zockler,  in  Lange's  Bihelwerli,  1868,  trans- 
lated into  English,  with  additions,  by  American  scholars  ;  H. 
Graetz,  1871 ;  B.  Schafer,  1876  ;  S.  J.  Kampf  (Jewish),  1877, 
2nd  edit.,  1879  ;  L.  Noack,  Tharraqah  and  Sunamith,  1869  ; 
Dr.  Caj.  Kossowicz,  Canticum  Cant,  ex  Hehrao  convertit  et 
ex2}licavit,  Petropoli,  1879  ;  J.  G.  Stickel,  Bas  H.  L.  in  seiner 
Einheit  u.  dram.  Gliederung^  1888  ;  C.  F.  Godet,  in  his 
Etudes  Bibliques,  1873  ;  Theod.  Gessner,  Bas  Hohelied  erhl. 
und  itbersetzt,  1888  ;  F.  S.  Tiefenthal,  Bas  Hohelied  ausgelegt 
far  Theoiogiestudirenden,  Kempten,  1889.    S.  Oettli,  in  Strack 


172  THE  POETICAL  BOOKS. 

and  ZiJclder,  1889.  Poetical,  though  somewhat  repulsive,  is 
The  Song  of  Songs :  a  Hehreio  Pastoral  Drama^  not  hy  king 
Solomon,  loith  notes  and  illustrations  hy  Satyam  Jayati  [a 
w^w  ^e  ^^Zwwe,  "Truth  conquers"],  Lond.,  1867.  Ginsburg's 
view  has  been  prettUy  popularised  in  English  in  The  Song 
of  Solomon  rendered  into  English  Verse,  by  James  Pratt, 
D.D.,  1881. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

THE   PROPHETS. 
§  1.  On  the  Prophets  in  General. 

1.  (~\^  Prophecy  and  the  Prophets  in  general  consult  H. 
V-/  Witsius,  De  prophetis  et  iprophetia,  in  his  Misoell. 
Sacra,  1692.  J.  Clericus,  Vet.  Test,  propheta,  1731.  Chr.  A. 
Crusius,  Hypomnemata  ad  tlwol.  propTi.  pertinentia,  1764, 
1778.  B.  W.  HeDgstenberg,  Christologie  des  A.  T,  2nd  edit., 
1854-1857,  English  translation  published  in  4  vols,  by  T.  and 
T.  Clark  ;  English  abridged  edit,  by  T.  K.  Arnold.  A.  Kuobel, 
Der  PropJietismus  d.  Hehra/ir,  2  parts,  1837.  J.  J.  Stahelin. 
Die  Messian.  Weissagungen  des  A.  T.,  1847.  F.  M.  Koster, 
Die  Proph.  des  A.  u.  N.  T.  nacJi  ihrem  Wesen  u.  Wirken,  1838. 
'Redsloh,  Der  Begriff  der  N^aM,  IS^9.  J.  C.  K.  v.  Hofmann, 
Weissagung  u.  Erfiilhing,  2  parts,  1841,  1844.  Davison,  On 
Prophecy,  1839.  Franz  Delitzsch,  Die  lill.  propTi.  Theologie, 
Hire  FortMldung  durch  Crusius,  u.  ihre  neueste  EntioicTielung 
seit  Hengstenherg,  1845  ;  id.  3fessianic  Prophecies,  translated 
by  S.  I.  Curtiss,  1880  ;  new  edit,  now  in  the  press,  T.  and 
T.  Clark.  A.  Tholuck,  Die  Propheten  u.  ihre  Weissagungen. 
2te  Aufl.  1860.  L.  Eeinke  (Roman  CathoUc),  Die  Mess. 
Weissagungen  hei  den  gross,  u.  M.  Proph.  des  A  T.,  5  vols., 
1859-62.  G.  F.  Oehler,  Ueb.  d.  Verhdlt.  d.  A.  T.  Proph.  z. 
heidn.  Maiitik,  1861:  id.  Theol.  des  A.  T,  1873,  2te  Aufl., 
1882,  English  translation  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark.  G. 
Bauer,  Gesch.  d.  A.  T.  Weissagung,  1861.  H.  Ewald,  Die 
Propheten  d.  A.  B.,  3  vols,  2te  Aufl.,  1867,  186.8,  English 
translation  published  in  Williams  and  Norgate's  Theological 
Translation  Fund.     KUper,  Das  Proph.  d.  A.  j&.,  1870.     B. 


174  THE   PROPHETS. 

Duhni,  Die  Theologie  der  Pvpjjh.,  1875.  K.  Payne  Smith, 
JBampton  Lectures  on  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for  Christ, 
1869.  Kuenen,  Be  Profeten  en  de  Profetie  onder  Israel,  1875, 
English  translation,  The  Propliets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel, 
1877.  Ed.  Reuss,  Les  Prophetes,  2  vols.,  1876,  in  his  La 
Bihle,  Traduction  nottvelle  avec  introd.  et  comvi.  S.  Leathes, 
Old  Testament  Prophecy,  its  Witness,  1880.  H.  Schultz,  A. 
T.  Theologie,  2te  Aufl.,  1878.  F.  Hitzig,  Bihl.  Theologie  des 
A.  T.  u.  Messianische  Weissagungeii,  herausgeg.  von  Kneucker, 
1880.  C.  J.  Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  u.  Propheten,  1881.  F.  E. 
Konig,  Der  Offenlarung  sic  griff  d.  A.  T.,  2  vols.,  1882.  C. 
V.  Orelli,  Die  A.  T.  Welssagung  v.  d.  Vollendung  des  Gottes- 
reichcs,  1882,  English  translation  published  by  T.  and  T. 
Clark.  E.  Bohl,  Christologie  d.  A.  T,  1882.  E.  Riehm,  Die 
Mess.  Weissagung.,  2te  Aufl.,  1885,  English  transl.  1876,  new 
transl.  by  L.  A.  Muirhead,  1891  ;  T.  and  T.  Clark.  W.  Robert- 
son Smith,  The  Prophets  of  Israel  aiid  their  Place  in  History y 
1882.  Brownlow  Maitland,  The  Argumejit  from  Propliccy, 
1877.  Important  are  C.  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  1886 ; 
Delitzsch,  Messianic  Proph.  in  hist,  succession,  1891. 

2.  Among  general  commentaries  maybe  mentioned  :  Rosen- 
miiller's  Scholia,  which  are  always  useful  ;  Jesaia,  3rd  edit., 
1829-1834  ;  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations,  1826,  1827  ;  Ezekiel, 
2nd  edit.,  1820,  1826;  Daniel,  1832;  Proph.  Minores,  2nd 
edit.,  1827, 1828.  The  Translation  of  the  Prophets  from  Isaiah 
to  Mulachi,  with  Notes  by  Lowth,  Blayney,  Newcome,Wintle, 
and  Horsley,  5  vols.,  1836,  is  antiquated,  but  occasionally 
useful  for  English  scholars.  Rowland  Williams,  Hebrew 
Prophets  Translated;  vol.  i.  Prophets  during  Assyrian 
Emjiire,  1866 ;  vol.  ii.  Dahylon  and  Persia,  1871  (left 
unfinished  by  the  author).  Henderson,  Comm.  on  Isaiah^ 
1857  ;  EzeUel,  1855  ;  The  Mhior  Prophets,  1858. 

The  writers  in  Lange's  Bihehverh,  the  Speaker's  Commentary, 
the  Pulpit  Commentary,  and  in  Keil  and  Delitzsch  Covim.,  and 
in  the  Kurzgef,  Exeg.  Handh.  will  be  found  mentioned  under 
the  several  books. 


ISAIAH,  175 

k.— THE  FOUR  GREATER  PROPHETS. 
§  2.  Isaiah. 

1.  Isaiah — -IHW^,  The  Salvation  of  Jahveh,  Gr. 
*Hcrata?,  Latin  Isaias  and  Esaias — was  the  greatest 
of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  His  father's  name  was 
Amoz  (P^^),  which  name  must  not  be  confounded 
with  that  of  the  prophet  Amos  (Di?^^^),  as  was  done 
by  many  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers.  Of  Amoz 
nothing  is  really  known,  although  a  Jewish  tradition 
of  very  little  authority  makes  Amoz  a  brother  of  king 
Amaziah.  According  to  the  superscription  of  Isa.  i. 
1,  compared  with  chap.  vi.  1,  Isaiah  prophesied  during 
the  reigns  of  four  kings  j  and  if  twenty  years  of  age 
when  he  began  his  prophetic  ministry  in  the  reign 
of  Uzziah,  must  have  been  considerably  above  eighty 
when  he  died.  He  died  a  martyr's  death  in  the 
beginning  of  Manasseh's  reign,  according,  to  a  Jewish 
tradition,  probably  referred  to  in  Heb.  xi.  37.  Isaiah 
was  married,  and  his  wife  is  termed  a  "  prophetess" 
(chap.  viii.  3).  He  had  at  least  two  sons,  Shear-jashub 
(chap.  vii.  3)  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  (chap.  viii.  3). 

2.  The  Book  of  Isaiah  consists  of  two  main  portions, 
the  former  of  which  embraces  chap,  i.-xxxix. ;  the 
second,  chap,  xl.-lxvi.  The  first  half  mainly  consists 
of  prophecies  arising  out  of  circumstances  which  took 
place  in  the  reigns  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah.  The 
second  portion  is  occupied  chiefly  with  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  and  the  restoration  from  exile. 

I.  The  first  part  is  subdivided  into  several  sections. 
(a)  Prefatory.  The  sixth  chapter  relates  the  call  of 
the  prophet.     Chap.  i.-v.  inclusive  contain  prophecies 


176  THE  PROPHETS. 

later  in  point  of  time,  but  which  were  placed  in  their 
present  position  as  being  peculiarly  suitable  as  a 
general  preface,  {h)  Chap,  vii.-xii.  have  been  well 
termed  "the  book  of  Immanuel,"  and  contain  pro- 
phecies designed  to  comfort  the  pious  under  the 
Assyrian  troubles.  The  land,  though  overwhelmed 
by  the  foe,  belonged  to  "  Immanuel "  (chap.  viii.  8), 
and  therefore  would  be  ultimately  delivered,  (c)  Chap, 
xiii.-xxiii.  are  composed  of  prophecies  directed  against 
various  nations.  Of  these,  chap,  xiii.-xiv.  23  contains 
prophecies  against  Babylon;  chap.  xiv.  24-27  against 
Assyria;  chap.  xiv.  28-32  against  Philistia;  chap, 
xv.-xvi.  against  Moab;  chap.  xvii.  against  Syria  and 
its  capital  Damascus ;  chap,  xviii.  refers  to  Ethiopia ; 
chap,  xix.,  XX.  speak  of  Egypt;  chap.  xxi.  contains 
short  predictions  respecting  Babylon,  Edom,  and 
Arabia ;  chap.  xxii.  utters  a  prophecy  of  woe  against 
Jerusalem,  which  closes  with  a  bitter  denunciation 
of  Shebna,  who  was  treasurer  during  part  of 
Hezekiah's  reign.  In  that  prophecy  is  contained  a 
prediction  of  the  exaltation  to  office  of  Eliakim, 
who,  notwithstanding  his  personal  integrity,  was 
warned  beforehand  that  his  own  downfall  should 
in  turn  be  caused  by  a  fatal  tendency  to  nepotism. 
These  closing  verses  are  considered  by  some  critics 
to  have  been  inserted  in  this  place  out  of  order. 
The  suggestion  is  open  to  serious  doubt.  Chap, 
xxiii.,  which  closes  this  section  of  the  book,  con- 
tains a  remarkable  prediction  against  Tyre.  {d) 
Chap,  xxiv.-xxvii.  are  of  a  distinctly  apocalyptic 
character,  and  give  a  vivid  description  of  the  final 
overthrow  of   the    woild-power.      Babylon,   Assyria, 


ISAIAH.  177 

and  Egypt  are  the  nations  which  are  here  specially- 
present  to  the  prophet's  mind.  (e)  "  The  Book  of 
Woes  "  is  a  suitable  description  of  chap,  xxviii.-xxxiii. 
Those  prophecies  were  directed  against  Samaria  and 
Judah,  and  describe  the  Assyrian  invasion  under 
Sennacherib,  and  the  great  deliverance  then  vouch- 
safed to  Israel.  {/)  Chap,  xxxiv.  and  xxxv.  are  also 
apocalyptic  in  tone.  In  those  chapters  Edom  figures 
as  the  representative  of  the  enemies  of  Zion.  (g) 
Chap,  xxxvi.-xxxix.  form  an  historical  appendix  to 
the  whole  work,  and  are  almost  identical  with  2  Kings 
xviii.  13,  17-37,  xix.,  xx.,  with  the  exception  of  the 
psalm  of  Hezekiah,  which  is  not  found  in  the  Book 
of  Kings. 

There  is  much  difierence  of  opinion  among  critics 
on  the  question  of  the  authorship  by  Isaiah  of  the 
prophecies  relative  to  Babylon  in  chap,  xiii.-xiv.,  xxi., 
and  of  the  two  series  of  apocalyptic  chapters  (viz. 
chap,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  and  xxxiv. -xxxv.).  The  difficulties 
in  the  case  of  chap.  xxi.  are  generally  supposed  to 
have  been  obviated  by  the  discovery  of  a  siege  of 
Babylon  by  the  Assyrians,  which  occurred  during 
Isaiah's  own  lifetime.  On  the  assumption  that  this 
is  correct,  and  bearing  in  mind  that  a  Babylonian 
invasion  of  Judah  is  spoken  of  in  a  passage  (chap, 
xxxix.)  generally  acknowledged  as  historical,  if  not 
Isaianic,  the  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
other  prophecies  seem  to  be  deprived  of  much  of  their 
force.  It  is  impossible  fairly  to  summarise  the  points 
adduced  on  both  sides  in  this  difficult  controversy. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  the  general  verdict  of 
modern  scholarship  is  in  favour  (not  without  important 

12 


178  THE  PROPHETS. 

exceptions)  of  the  view  that  a  portion  even  of  the 
first  part  of  the  book  is  the  work  of  other  prophets 
belonging  to  what  may  be  called  Isaiah's  school. 

II.  The  second  portion  of  the  book  consists  of  chap, 
xl.-lxvi.  These  chapters  are  unquestionably  written 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and 
open  with  a  glorious  assurance  of  the  coming  redemp- 
tion. The  fall  and  captivity  of  Israel  gave  great 
occasion  to  the  idolaters  to  maintain  that  their  gods 
were  superior  in  might  to  "  the  Holy  One  of  Israel." 
Hence  the  majesty  and  power  of  Jehovah,  and  the 
nothingness  of  all  the  other  so-called  gods  of  the 
nations  are  constantly  dwelt  upon  in  the  closing 
chapters.  The  literary  style  of  this  part  of  the  book  is 
often  in  marked  contrast  to  the  first  portion,  although 
there  are  remarkable  coincidences  between  the  two. 
The  difference  in  style  and  in  standpoint  have  led  the 
majority  of  modern  critics  to  deny  that  the  second 
part  can  have  been  written  by  Isaiah  of  Jerusalem, 
and  to  maintain  it  to  be  a  product  of  the  Exilic  period, 
though  probably  prior  to  the  Restoration.  Its  author 
has  been  termed  by  Ewald  "  the  great  Unknown, ' 
and  is  generally  designated  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  or 
the  Second  Isaiah.  If,  however,  Isaiah  predicted  the 
Babylonian  captivity  (chap,  xxxix.)  on  the  occasion 
of  the  embassy  sent  to  Hezekiah  by  Merodach  Baladan, 
it  may  well  be  argued  that  that  prophet  must  have 
also  predicted  the  Bestoration.  From  the  theocratic 
standpoint  it  can  scarcely  be  conceived  that  a  prophet 
should  speak  of  the  people  of  Jehovah  being  carried 
away  into  captivity  without  predicting  a  return  from 
that  captivity,  on  the  principles  enunciated  in  Deut. 


ISAIAH,  179 

1-5.     »St.  Paul,  in  a  much  darker  period,  predicted 
a  day  of  light  and  dehverance  (Rom.  xi.). 

If,  however,  Isaiah  was  the  author  of  the  second 
portion  of  the  book,  that  portion  must  have  been 
written  long  after  his  other  prophecies,  and  towards 
the  close  of  the  prophet's  career.  He  must  needs 
have  often  mused  on  the  days  of  exile  approaching, 
as  the  shadows  of  apostasy  gathered  over  the  land  in 
the  opening  of  Manasseh's  reign.  When  an  old  man, 
he  might  well  have  been  led  to  transport  himself  in 
spirit  to  the  close  of  that  period  of  disgrace  and 
sorrow.  No  one  who  actually  beheld  the  Return  of 
the  Jews  could  have  written  in  such  glowing  terms. 
The  theory  is  not,  we  admit,  free  from  difficulties 
Cyrus  is  twice  mentioned  by  name  (chap.  xliv.  28, 
xlv.  1)  as  the  coming  deliverer.  The  latter  difficulty  is 
not  obviated  by  an  appeal  to  the  history  recorded  in 
1  Kings  xiiio  2.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  proper 
names  in  both  cases  ought  to  be  regarded  as  later 
additions.  And  it  is  conceivable  that  even  other 
additions  were  made  in  the  process  of  time  to  the 
prophecies  of  this  part  of  the  book. 

The  second  portion  of  the  book  falls  into  three 
parts,  {a)  Ch.  xl.-xlviii.  Words  of  comfort  to  the 
exiles  are  combined  with  the  assurance  of  coming 
restoration,  mainly  derived  from  the  consideration  of 
the  essential  diflerence  between  Jehovah  and  those 
who  were  not  gods,  {h)  The  great  prophecy  of 
"the  Servant  of  Jehovah"  (chap,  xlix.-lvii.).  The 
title,  "  Servant  of  Jehovah,"  is  employed  by  Isaiah 
in  a  threefold  sense.  It  is  sometimes  used  of  all 
Israel,  "Israel  according   to  the   flesh"    (chap.  xlii. 


180  THE  PROPHETS. 

19);  more  often  of  the  godly  in  Israel,  ''Israel 
according  to  the  spirit"  (chap.  xliv.  1,  2,  21).  But 
in  that  special  portion  the  title  is  used  solely  with 
reference  to  the  Messiah,  to  whom  the  name  had  been 
also  appHed  in  chap.  xlii.  1,  xliii.  10.  (c)  Chap.  Iviii.- 
Ixvi.  describe  the  past  sin  and  present  salvation  of 
Israel,  and  set  forth  the  conditions  under  which 
the  restoration  of  the  people  is  predicted.  They 
describe  the  future  glory  of  the  nation,  and  the 
overthrow  of  all  the  enemies  of  Jehovah.  The  first 
two  sections  of  the  second  part  of  the  book  end 
significantly  with  the  refrain,  "no  peace  to  the 
wicked,"  while  the  final  destruction  of  the  ungodly 
is  vividly  described  in  the  closing  verse  of  the  third 
part. 

3.  The  commentaries  on  Isaiah  are  very  nmnerous.  The 
more  important  are  :  Among  the  Fathers,  those  of  Jerome  and 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  may  be  mentioned.  Among  the  Jewish 
commentaries  of  which  Latin  translations  exist,  may  be 
mentioned  the  Comm.  in  Projyh.  post,  of  Is.  Abarbanel,  1520  ; 
Breithaupt's  edition  of  Rashi  (R.  Salom.  Yarchi),  Comm.  m 
Propli.  maj.  et  min.,  1713  ;  Dav.  Kimchi,  Comm.  in  Jes., ¥lov., 
1774 ;  Ibn  Ezra,  Commentary  on  Isaiah ;  translated  into 
English  by  M.  Friedlander  ;  vols,  i.,  ii.,  1873  ;  vol.  iii.,  1877. 
Important  are  :  Strigel,  Condones,  1565,  and  Calvin,  Comm., 
3rd  edit.,  Genev.,  1570;  but  more  especially  Vitringa's  great 
Comm.  in  two  folio  volumes  (Leov.),  1714,  1720  ;  reprinted  at 
Herborn,  1715,  1722.  Bp.  Lowth's  Comm.,  useful  in  its  day, 
and  often  reprinted,  is  antiquated,  and  its  critical  and  philo- 
logical notes  must  be  used  with  caution.  The  modern  school 
of  criticism  on  the  book  began  with  Gesenius,  whose  great 
work  on  the  prophet  was  published  in  3  vols,  in  1820,  1821. 
C.  L.  Hendewerk,  Comm.,  in  2  vols.,  appeared  in  1838,  and 
a  further  work,  Die  deuterojes.  Weissagungen,  in  1843.      F.  W 


ISAIAH.  181 

C.  Umbreit,  in  Pract.  Comvi.,  2nd  edit.,  184G.  Drechsler,  Ber 
Pro'p'h.  Jes.  iihersetzt  u.  erMdrt,  began  in  1845,  1849,  and  was 
finally  completed  by  Delitzsch  and  Hahn  in  1854,  1857.  E. 
lIendeTSon,Isaiah,ivith  neio  tra?isl.  and  crit.and  gramvi.  Comvi., 
2nd  edit.,  1857.  P.  Schegg  (Roman  Catholic)  wrote  a  useful 
commentary  in  2  vols,  in  1850.  S.  D.  Luzzatto  published  an 
important  commentary  from  the  Jewish  standpoint,  II  prof  eta 
Isaia,  Padua,  1855-1866.  A.  Knobel,  in  Kurzgef.  Exeg.  Eandh., 
1861  ;  revised  by  Diestel,  1872,  and  by  Dillmann,  Der  Proijliet 
Jesaia  erMdrt,  1890.  The  American  scholar  J.  A.  Alexander's 
Commentary  appeared  in  1846,  and  edit,  by  J.  Eadie  in 
a  revised  form  in  1865 ;  2  vols.  Nagelsbach,  in  Lunge's 
Bihelmerli,  1877.  J.  Knabenbauer  (Priest,  S.  J.),  Erhldrung, 
Freib.  in  B.,  1881.  T.  K.  Cheyne  wrote  on  Isaiah  chrono- 
logically arranged  in  1870,  and  an  important  commentary 
entitled  The  Projjhecies  of  Isaiah,  2  vols.,  1880,  1881,  5th 
edit.,  1889.  Of  Delitzsch 's  great  commentary,  the  4th  revised 
edition  appeared  shortly  before  his  lamented  death  in  1 889.  An 
English  translation  of  that  edit.,  2  vols.,  has  been  piiblished 
in  1890  by  T.  and  T.  Clark,  with  introduction  by  Driver  ;  and 
an  English  transl.  of  3rd  ed.  by  Rev.  J.  Denny,  B,D.,  has 
been  published  by  Hodder  and  Stoughton,  Lond.  1890.  C.  J. 
Bredenkamp,  Der  Prcjyhet  Jesaia  erldutert,  1887.  C.  v.  Orelli, 
Die  Projjh.  Jesaia  und  Jer.,  in  Strack-Zockler's  Comm.,  1887  ; 
V.  Orelli's  Comm.  on  Isaiah  has  been  translated  into  English, 
T.  and  T.  Clark,  1889.  Canon  Rawlinson  has  written  on 
Isaiah  in  the  Pulpit  Comm.,  2  vols.  ^ 

Monogrj^hs  have  been  written  on  many  portions  of  Isaiah, 
especially  on  Isa.  lii.  13-liii.  The  most  important  of  these 
is  The  Fifty-third  Chapter  of  Isaiah  according  to  the  Jewish 
Interpreters,  2  vols.  ;  vol.  i.,  Tewts  by  A.  Neubauer  ;  vol.  ii. 
Translations  by  S.  R.  Driver  and  A.  Neubauer,  with  Intro- 
duction by  E.  B.  Pusey,  1876,  1877.  W.  Urwick,  The  Servant 
of  Jehovah,  a  commentary,  grammatical  and  critical,  on  those 
chapters,  1877  (see  nest  page).  R.  Payne  Smith,  Authenticity 
and  Messianic  Interpretation  of  Prophecies  of  Isaiah  vin- 
dicated, 1862.     C.  H.  H.  Wright,   The  Pre-Christian  Jewish 


182  THE  PROPHETS, 

Interpretation  of  Isaiah  Hi.,  Uii.,  in  the  Expositor,  May  and 
June,  18S8.  Sir  E.  Strachey,  Jewish  History  and  Politics  in 
Times  of  Sargon,  1853,  2nd  ed.  1874.  On  the  authorship  the 
Introductions  are  most  important ;  and  C.  P.  Caspari,  Beit)  age 
on  (chap,  i.-vi.),  1848.  The  same  author  has  vniitQrvijJe'ber  den 
Syrisch-ephraimUischen  Krieg  unter  Jotham  und  Ahas.  Ein 
Beitrasr  zur  Gesch.  Isr.  in  der  Assyr.  Zeit  u.  zu  den  Fragen  iiber 
die  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Chronik  und  den  Plan  des  Jesaia, 
Christiania,  1849.^  Aug,  Wiinsche,  Die  Leiden  des  3Iessias, 
1870.  Lohr,  Zur  Frage  iiber  die  Echtheit  vonJesaias,  xlAxvi., 
3  parts,  1878-1880.  C.  H.  Corniirs  article  on  Die  Composition 
des  Buches  Jesaja  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift  fiir  A.  T.  W.,  1884, 
and  E.  Smend's  Anmerhmgen  zu  Jes.  xxiv.-xxvii.,  are  both  of 
importance.  Graetz  has  written  on  the  same  chapters  in  his 
Monatschrift  for  1886.  Klostermann  on  Isaiah  in  Herzog- 
Plitt  Eeal-Encycl.,  and  F.  Fehr,  Profeten  Jesaja  I.  and  II., 
Upsala,  1877,  1878.  H.  Guthe,  Das  Ziikunftslild  des  Jesaia., 
1885  ;  J.  M.  Rod  well's  The  Proph.  of  Isaiah  translated,  2nd 
edit.,  1886 ;  S.  R.  Driver,  Isaiah,  His  Life  and  Times,  n.  d. 
(1888)  ;  A.  H.  Sayce,  Life  ajid  Times  of  Isaiali,  1889,  Religious 
Tract  Society  ;  Dr.  Forbes,  The  Servant  of  the  Lord,  T.  and 
T.  Clark,  1890,  is  an  important  work.  G.  F.  Dalman,  Jesaia 
53  m.  lesond.  Berilchsichtig.  d.  synag.  Litteratur,  1890.  The 
Swedish  scholar,  Myrberg,  has  published  also  a  commentary 
on  the  book,  1888.  Of  importance  is  the  English  commentary 
by  G.  A.  Smith,  The  Book  of  Isaiah,  2  vols.,  in  the  Expositor's 
Bible,  1889.    See  new  books  in  Appendix. 

§  3.  Jeremiah. 

1.  Jeremiah  (-in^PT.  and  r^^Py.,  Gr.  lepc/^.ta?)  was 
a  priest,  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  who  may  have  been  the 
same  as  he  who  "found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord  "  (2  Kings  xxii.  8).  His  paternal 
abode  was  Anathoth  near  Jerusalem,  in  the  territory 
of  Benjamin.  He  received  the  prophetic  call  when 
young  (chap.  i.  1-7,  xxv.  3),  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 


JEREMIAH.  183 

Josiah  (B.C.  629  or  626).  He  prophesied  in  Jeru- 
salem and  the  other  cities  of  Judah  (chap.  xi.  6),  and 
also  in  Anathoth  (chap.  xi.  21  fF.).  After  the  capture 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldseans,  the  prophet  resided 
for  a  short  time  in  Mizpah  with  Gedaliah,  the  governor 
of  the  land  (chap.  xl.  6) ;  but  was  subsequently  carried 
off  by  the  insurgent  Jews  into  Egypt  (chap,  xliii.  6ff.), 
where  he  died,  stoned  to  death,  according  to  a  late 
tradition,  by  the  Jews  at  Tahpanhes. 

2.  His  book  consists  of  two  parts.  I.  Chap,  i.- 
xlv.,  which  comprise  prophecies  concerning  Judah 
and  the  kingdom  of  God  in  general,  interspersed  with 
historical  narratives.  II.  Chap,  xlvi.-li.  is  a  separate 
book  of  prophecies  concerning  the  nations.  The  last 
chapter  (chap.  Hi.)  is  an  addition  by  a  later  hand, 
posterior  to  B.C.  562.  Comp.  chap.  li.  64  and  lii.  31. 
Some  of  the  prophecies  were  written  down  under 
Jeremiah's  superintendence  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim. 
The  roll,  however,  which  contained  them  was  burnt 
by  the  king  (chap,  xxxvi.);  and  in  the  new  edition 
of  those  prophecies  large  additions  vv^ere  made  to  the 
work  (chap,  xxxvi.  32).  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah 
was  the  constant  friend  and  amanuensis  of  the  pro- 
phet. Many  of  the  prophecies  contained  in  the  Book 
of  Jeremiah  prove  on  examination  not  to  be  arranged 
in  chronological  order.  The  genuineness  of  several  of 
the  prophecies  {e.g.  chap.  x.  1-16,  xxv.  11-14,  with 
portions  of  chap,  xxvii.,  xxx.-xxxiii.,  etc.)  has  been 
often  called  in  question,  mainly  on  account  of  their 
resemblance  to  passages  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah. 
Many  portions  of  the  work  have  evidently  been 
re-edited  with  additional  matter,  and  it  is  uncertain 


184  TEE   PROPHETS. 

at  what  period  the  prophet  completed  his  own  work. 
The  authorship  of  chap.  1.,  li.  (with  the  exception  of 
li.  59-64)  is  much  disputed ;  but  the  reasons  assigned 
are  not  convincing  to  those  who  believe  in  the  reality 
of  Divine  predictions. 

The  text  of  Jeremiah  in  the  LXX.  differs  consider- 
ably from  that  of  the  Hebrew.  The  prophecies  against 
the  nations  contained  in  chap,  xlvi.-li.  are  inserted  in 
the  LXX.  immediately  after  chap.  xxv.  13.  In  many 
other  places  the  LXX.  present  a  shorter  text.  The 
superiority  of  the  Hebrew  text  is,  however,  generally 
admitted.  The  alterations  in  the  LXX.  seem  to  have 
been  the  result  of  design,  and  were  not  caused  by 
the  errors  of  copyists.  The  Hebrew  text  of  the  book, 
however,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  well  preserved. 

Jeremiah  was  much  affected  by  the  sad  and  open 
breaches  of  the  covenant  of  which  Israel  had  been 
guilty,  and  frequently  bewails  the  judgments  which 
he  saw  would  inevitably  follow.  He  foresaw,  how- 
ever, the  dawn  of  better  days,  which  would  be  brought 
about  by  Israel's  repentance  and  regeneration,  and 
by  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  between  Israel  and 
Jehovah.  This  formed  one  of  the  great  subjects  of 
his  predictions.  The  personality  of  the  Messiah  is 
not  dwelt  upon  by  Jeremiah  as  fully  as  by  other 
prophets.  But  it  is  spoken  of  in  chap,  xxiii.  5-8, 
XXX.  4-11,  xxxiii.  14-26.  Jeremiah  was  frequently  ac- 
cused by  the  Jews  of  his  day  of  lack  of  patriotism. 
But  the  accusation  was  false  (see  chap.  ix.).  Had 
the  prophet's  advice  been  followed  by  Zedekiah  even 
during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  or  by  the  Jews  after 
the  murder    of  Gedaliah,    the    Babylonian   captivity 


JEREMIAH.  185 

would  not  have  been  attended  with  such  fatal  conse- 
quences to  the  nation. 

3.  The  more  important  commentaries  among  the  Patristic 
writers  are  those  of  Jerome  and  Theodoret.  Of  KeformatioD 
and  post- Kef ormation  scholars,  the  commentaries  of  Calvin. 
CEcolampadius,  Piscator  may  be  noted.  Important  are  Ghis- 
lerus,  Comm.  in  Jer.  cum  catena  Patruvi  GrcBcorum  et  comm. 
in  Lam.  et  Baruch,  1623  ;  Seb.  Schmidt,  Comm.  in  lil).  jyropU. 
Ter.^  2  vols.,  4to,  1685,  and  Herm.  Venema,  Comm.  in  lib.  proph. 
Jer.,  2  vols.,  1725.  B.  Blayney's  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations^ 
1784,  is  now  of  little  value.  More  useful  is  J.  D.  Michaolis. 
Ohs.pliil.  et  crit.  in  Jer.  vat.  et  Threnos,Q,d.  Schleusner,  1793. 
The  writings  of  Hensler,  1805  ;  Gaab,  1824  ;  Piosenmiiller  ; 
Maurer,  1833,  and. others  are  still  useful.  Umbreit,  1842; 
Ewald;  Hitzig;  D.  Neumann,  Jeremias  von  Anathoth:  die  YT/ 
Weissagung.  u.  Klagel.  ausgelegt,  1856,  1858,  suggestive  but  / 
must  be  used  with  caution.  K.  H.  Graf,  Der  Proph.  Jer.  erkl.j 
1862,  1863;  E.  Meier,  Bie  proph.  Bilaher  d.  A.  T.,  1863; 
Hitzig,  Jeremiah,  2tQ  Aufl,,  1866  ;  Keil,  Jeremiah  and  Lamen- 
tations ;  translated  into  English,  T.  and  T.  Clark  ;  Nagelsbach 
on  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations  in  Lange's  Bihelweo'Ti,  1868, 
English  translation  with  addit.  notes  ;  Anton  Scholz  (Roman 
Catholic),  Ber  Mass.  Text  u.  d.  XXX.,  1875  ;  Commentar, 
1880  ;  Guthe,  De  foederis  notions.  Jer.,  1877 ;  F.  Kostlin,  Jesaja 
u.  Jer.  ihr  Lehen  u.  Werhen,  1879 ;  Graetz,  JSxeg.  Stndien  in 
his  Monatschrift,  1883  ;  R.  Payne  Smith  in  Spealier's  Com- 
mentary;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Comment,  on  Jer.  and  Lam.  in 
Pulpit  Commentar]/,  1883  ;  also  in  Jeremiah,  His  Life  and 
Times,  1888.  G.  C.  Workman's  suggestive  work,  The  Text 
of  Jeremiah,  1889,  must  be  used  with  caution  (see  Professor 
Driver's  critique  in  Expositor,  1889).  A.  W.  Streane,  Com- 
mentary on  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations  in  the  Cambridge 
Bible,  1887,  is  a  useful  work  for  English  readers.  L.  A. 
Schneedorfer  (Roman  Catholic),  Das  Weissagung sluch  des 
Prof.  Jer.  erhl.,  1881,  is  important.  C.  J.  Ball,  The  Prophecies 
of  Jeremiah  in  Expositor's  Bihle,  1889.  K.  von  Orelli,  Jes. 
and  Jer.  in  Strack-Zookler's  Comm.,  1887. 


186  THE  PROPHETS, 


§  4.  The  Lamentations. 

1.  The  Book  of  Lamentations  is  in  Hebrew  MSS. 
termed  ^2^^:  (^Ah I  how?),  from  its  first  word,  but 
generally  in  printed  editions  is  styled  from  its  con- 
tents riiJ''i?,  Lamentations  ;  Gr.  ©prjvoi.  In  the  Hebrew 
canon  the  book  forms  one  of  the  five  Megilloth 
(or  Polk),  and  is  placed  among  the  Hagiographa. 
It  is  read  by  the  Jews  on  the  anniversary  of  the 
destruction  of  the  first  temple  (9th  Ab).  The 
book  is  ascribed  to  Jeremiah  in  the  LXX.,  Targ., 
and  Talmud.  It  contains  five  lamentations  over 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  first  four  poems  are 
alphabetic.  In  chap.  i.  and  chap.  ii.  every  verse 
commences  alike  with  a  new  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet.  In  chap.  iii.  there  are  sixty-six  verses,  and 
every  three  verses  begin  with  the  same  letter.  In 
chap.  i.  the  usual  order  of  the  alphabet  is  followed, 
in  which  V  precedes  S.  But  in  chap,  ii.,  iii.,  and  iv., 
the  reverse  order  is  followed.  In  chap.  iv.  there  are 
twenty-two  verses,  each  of  four  lines ;  chap.  v.  is  not 
alphabetic,  although  it  has  only  twenty-two  verses. 
The  authorship  of  Jeremiah  has  been  defended  by 
many  eminent  critics,  both  ancient  and  modern. 
Compare  the  statement  in  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25.  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  no  remains  exist 
of  the  special  lamentations  spoken  of  in  that  passage, 
although  Josephus  [Antiq.,  x.  5,  1)  seems  to  think  that 
this  book  was  composed  on  that  occasion. 

The  LXX.  prefixes  the  following  preface  to  the 
book,  "And  it  came  to  pass  after  Israel  was  taken 


EZEKIEL,  187 

captive  and  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  Jeremiah  sat 
down  weeping,  and  lamented  with  this  lamentation 
over  Jerusalem,  and  said,"  etc. 

2.  A  considerable  number  of  those  scholars  who  have  written 
on  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  have  also  written  on  the 
Lamentations.  Among  the  older  commentaries,  J.  Ternovius, 
Comm.  iji  Threnos,  1642;  J.  H.  Pareau,  Thren.  Jer.  phil.  and 
crit.  illnstr.,  1790,  are  of  importance.  Among  the  modern 
writers  on  the  book  may  be  mentioned  Goldwitzer,  Uehersetz. 
mit  Vergl.  d.  LXX.  u.  Vidg.  u.  hrit.  Anmerlt.,  1828  ;  Kalkar, 
Lam.  crit.  et  exeg.  illnst)\,  1836;  0.  Thenins,  Die  Xlagelieder, 
in  Kurzgef.  exeg.  Handh.,  1855  ;  W.  Engelhardt,  Die  Klage- 
Ueder,  1867.  Der  Midrasli  Eclia  Rahhati  das  ist  die  Jiaggad. 
Ausleg.  der  Klagelied.^  zum  ersten  Male  ins  Deutsche  Uher- 
tragen  von  Dr.  Aug.  Wiinsche,  1881,  is  an  important  work. 
E.  Gevlach,  Die  Xlagelieder,  1868;  L.  A.  Schneedorfer  (Roman 
Catholic),  Die  Klag.  erkl.,  1876;  J.  M.  Schonfelder,  Die 
Klagelieder  des  Jercmias  nach  Rahhinischer  Auslegung ,  1887. 
On  the  questions  connected  with  the  book,  besides  the 
various  Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament,  see  Th.  Noldeke, 
Alt-test.  Litteratur,  1868;  C.  Flockner,  Ueher  d.  Verf.  d. 
Klagel.  in  d.  Tilh.  Tlieol.  ^uartalschr.,  lix.  1877.  S.  Oettli, 
in  Strack  and  Zoclder's  Comm.,  1889. 


§    5.    EZEKIEL. 

1.  The  name  Ezekiel,  ^^^P.tCl,  is  compounded  either 
of  ^^  p]n!j.,  God  is  strong,  according  to  Ewald,  or  of 
^^  P:tn^,  Eim  whom  God  strengthens.  LXX.  le^cKtiyA. 
and  so  Sir.  xlix.  8.  Yulgate  Ezechiel.  The  prophet 
Ezekiel  was  the  son  of  a  priest  called  Buzi  (which 
occurs  as  a  gentilic  name  in  Job  xxxii.  2,  6).  He  was 
carried  into  captivity  with  Jehoiachin  in  B.C.  597  or 
599,  and  henceforward  lived  and  prophesied  "  in  the 


188  THE  PROPHETS. 

land  of  the  Chaldeeans  "  by  the  river,  or  canal,  of 
Chebar,  "^5?,  which  must  carefully  be  distinguished 
from  Habor,  "lUH,  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xvii.  6.  See 
Fried.  Delitzsch,  Paradies,  p.  47  ff.  Ezekiel  began 
to  prophesy  five  years  after  the  captivity,  and 
consequently  prophesied  at  least  twenty-two  years, 
since  his  last  dated  prophecy  was  in  the  twenty- 
seventh  year  of  the  captivity.  He  may  have,  how- 
ever, prophesied  for  a  longer  period.  He  was  a 
contemporary  of  Jeremiah.  The  scene  of  Ezekiel's 
laboui'S  was  Babylon,  that  of  Jeremiah  Palestine 
and  Egypt.  An  uncertain  tradition  states  that 
Ezekiel,  as  well  as  Jeremiah,  was  put  to  death  by 
his  fellow  exiles  on  account  of  his  denunciations 
of  idolatry. 

2.  His  book  naturally  falls  into  three  parts : — 
I.  The  first  portion  comprises  chap,  i.-xxiv.,  and 
consists  mainly  of  prophecies  concerning  Judah  and 
Jerusalem.  The  introductory  section,  chap.  i.  1- 
iii.  31,  is  termed  by  the  Jews  "the  vision  of  the 
chariot."  The  phrase  "  chariot  "  is  used  in  connection 
with  the  cherubim  in  1  Chron.  xxviii.  18,  and  hence 
the  name  given  to  this  vision  in  which  the  cherubim 
formed  so  conspicuous  a  feature.  The  "  living  crea- 
tures" mentioned  in  chap.  i.  are  later  described  as 
cherubim  (see  specially  chap.  x.  20).  II.  The  second 
portion  of  the  book  comprises  chap,  xxv.-xxxii.  It  con- 
tains prophecies  against  Ammon,  Moab,  Edom,  Philistia, 
Tyre,  Sidon,  and  Egypt.  III.  The  third  portion  of  the 
book  is  occupied  with  the  days  of  Bestoration  and 
Recovery,  chap,  xxxiii.-xlviii.  That  portion,  written 
after  the  judgment  had  fallen  on  Jerusalem  (chap. 


EZEKIEL,  189 

xxxiii.  21  ff.),  abounds  in  remaikable  promises  of  the 
future.  The  false  shepherds  and  leaders  of  Israel 
are  described  in  chap,  xxxiv.,  and  in  contrast  to  them 
the  Messiah  is  delineated  as  the  "  one  shepherd,"  "  My 
servant  David."  Chap.  xxxv.  is  a  prophecy  against 
Edom,  occasioned  probably  by  the  unbrotherly  part 
acted  by  Edom  in  "  the  day  of  Jerusalem  "  mentioned 
in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7.  Ezekiel  is  particularly  strong  on 
the  morality  of  true  religion.  See  chap,  xviii.  and 
chap,  xxxiii. 

3.  Ezekiel  delighted  in  allegories.  Of  these  the 
most  remarkable  is  that  of  Oholah  and  Oholibah 
(chap,  xxiii.).  The  national  restoration  of  Israel  is 
predicted  in  chap,  xxxvii.  under  the  picture  of  a 
resurrection  of  bodies  of  which  the  dry  bones  alone 
remained.  The  prophecy  concerning  Gog  and  Magog 
(chap,  xxxviii.,  xxxix.)  is  not  a  literal  prediction,  but 
a  prophetical  allegory  in  which  the  attempts  of  the 
enemies  of  Israel  to  destroy  that  people  in  their 
weak  state  after  the  Restoration,  and  Israel's  final 
victory,  are  vividly  described.  The  absurdity  of  regard- 
ing that  prophecy  to  be  a  prediction  of  the  future  of 
Russia  on  account  of  the  supposed,  but  utterly 
mistaken,  connection  between  the  names  Rosh  and 
Russia,  Meshech  and  Muscovy,  Tubal  smd  Tobolsk  (!!) 
has  been  exposed  in  my  Biblical  Essays.  Similarly 
allegorical  is  the  description  in  chap,  xl.-xlviii.  of  the 
new  theocracy,  of  the  new  temple  erected,  not  in  the 
old  Jerusalem,  but  in  an  ideal  city,  on  an  "  exceeding 
high  mountain."  From  the  sanctuary  of  the  new 
temple  living  waters  are  described  as  flowing  down- 
wards, and,  although  unfed  by  affluent  streams,  as 


190  THE  PROPHETS. 

ever  deepening  along  their  course,  until  they  flow  into 
the  Dead  Sea  and  heal  its  waters.  The  new  city 
described  by  Ezekiel  is  called  "  Jehovah  Shammah," 
"  Jehovah  is  there.''  When  from  his  Old  Testament 
standpoint,  Ezekiel  describes  the  land  as  again  divided 
among  the  tribes,  he  is  careful  to  note  that  the 
strangers  who  shall  sojourn  in  Israel  are  to  have  equal 
rights  with  the  children  of  Israel  themselves.  The 
whole  description  is  consequently  allegorical,  or  ideal, 
and  not  literal.  The  visions  of  future  blessings  were 
described  by  the  prophet  under  Old  Testament  forms 
and  figures. 

Some  modern  critics  maintain,  however,  that 
Ezekiel's  description  of  the  reorganization  of  the 
priesthood  and  the  temple  services  and  ceremonies 
was  intended  to  be  taken  literally.  Those  critics 
argue  that  the  arrangements  described  by  Ezekiel 
were  older  than  those  laid  down  in  the  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch  termed  by  them  "  the  Priests'  Code  "  (see 
before,  p.  89  fF.).  These  arguments  are  very  doubtful, 
and  by  no  means  as  cogent  as  often  represented.  The 
soundest  defence  against  such  novel  views  is  to  be 
found  in  insisting  on  the  ideal  and  allegorical  character 
of  the  prophecy.  The  genuineness  of  Ezekiel  is 
admitted  by  all  critics  of  mark.  The  Jews  regarded 
"  the  vision  of  the  chariot,"  i.e.  the  vision  of  the 
cherubim  in  chap.  i.  and  chap.  x.  9  (see  before,  p.  188) 
as  a  synopsis  of  theosophy ;  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  being  similarly  viewed  as  a  synopsis  of 
cosmogony.  Hence  the  study  of  both  those  portions 
of  Scripture  was  forbidden  to  persons  under  thirty 
years  of  age. 


DANIEL.  191 

4.  Among  the  older  commentaries  on  this  book  may  be 
mentioned  those  of  J.  (Ecolampadius  Comm.  iii  Ezech.,  1543, 
folio;  V.  Strigelii,  Ezech.  proph.  ad  Heh.  verit.  recogn.  et 
argum.  et  seliol.  illustr.,  156i,  1575,  and  1579  ;  Casp.  Sanctii, 
Comm.  in  Ezech.  et  Dan.,  1619;  Hieron.  Pradi  et  J.  Bapt. 
Villalpandi  in  Eiech.  explan.  et  appar.  urhis  et  tempi.  Hieros. 
eomvi.  illust.,  Rom.,  1596-1604,  3  vols.,  folio  ;  H.  Venema, 
Lect.  Acad,  ad  Ezech.,  1790.  Among  the  newer  are : 
Rosenmliller,  Scholia,  2nd  edit.,  1826  ;  Maurer  in  vol.  ii.  of  his 
Comm.,  1836  ;  Havernick,  Comm.  ilber  den  Proph.  Ezeehiel, 
1843;  Ewald,  in  Proph.  d.  alt.  Bundes,  vol.  2,  2te  Ausg., 
1868  ;  E.  Henderson,  Ezehiel  with  Comm.,  critical,  etc.,  1855; 
Kliefoth,  1864  ;  Hengstenberg,  Die  Weissagungen  des  Proph. 
Ezech.,  2  vols,  1867,  1868,  translated  into  English,  T.  and  T. 
Clark  ;  Patrick  Fairbairn,  Ezehiel  and  the  Book  of  his 
Prophecy,  with  a  Neio  Translation,  3rd.  edit.,  1863.  Keil,  1868, 
English  translation  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark  ;  2nd  edit, 
of  the  German  work  with  4  lith.  plates,  1882;  F.  W.  J. 
Schroder,  in  Lange,  1873  ;  F.  Hitzig,  Ezehiel,  1847,  in  Kurzg. 
Ex.  Handh.,  by  R.  Smend,  with  8  woodcuts  and  plan,  1880  ; 
J.  Knabenbauer  (Rom.  Cath.),  Comm.  in  Ezech.,  Paris,  1890. 
Very  important  is  C.  H.  Cornill,  Das  Buch  des  Proph.  Ezeehiel, 
1886  ;  von  Orelli,  Ezech.  und  Min.  Proph.,  1888,  in  Strach  and 
Zochler's  Comm.  ;  Ernst  Kiihn,  EzechieVs  Gesicht  von  Tempel, 
Mit  1  Tafel,  1882  ;  W.  Neumann,  Die  Wasser  des  Lehens  (Ezek. 
xlvii.  1-12),  1849.  Important  articles  on  Der  Brandopferaltar 
EzeUels  (Ezek.  xliii :  13-17),  by  C.  H.  Cornill  and  R.  Fiirber, 
are  to  be  found  in  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift  fiir  kirch.  Wtssen- 
schaft,  for  the  years  1883  and  1884.     See  Appendix. 


§  6.  Daniel. 

1.  Daniel  (^^5.1^'^)  was  one  of  the  captives  carried 
away  from  Judah  during  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim.  In 
addition  to  the  facts  of  his  personal  history  related  in 
the  book  which  bears  his  name,  nothing  more  is  known 


192  THE  PROPHETS. 

of  him,  except  that  Ezekiel  mentions  his  holy  life, 
and  places  him  in  that  respect  on  a  par  with  Noah 
and  Job  (Ezek.  xiv.  14-20).  Ezekiel  also  speaks  of 
Daniel  as  a  paragon  of  wisdom  (chap,  xxviii.  3)  in 
language  which,  though  the  phraseology  is  different, 
recalls  in  substance  the  statements  set  forth  in  Daniel 
V.  11-12,  and  in  other  places  of  the  book.  The  addi- 
tions to  the  story  of  Daniel  in  the  LXX.  are  intrinsi- 
cally of  no  historical  value,  but  important  as  showing 
that  many  stories  about  Daniel,  which  are  not  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  were  current  in  the 
centuries  before  Christ.  Josephus  does  not,  indeed, 
mention  the  legend  of  Susanna,  or  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  found  in  the  LXX.,  but  he,  too,  makes 
additions  to  the  history  by  stating  that  Daniel  and 
his  three  companions  belonged  to  the  family  of 
Zedekiah  {Antiq.,  x.  10,  1).  Moreover  he  mentions 
additional  incidents  connected  with  the  story  of  the 
den  of  lions  {Antiq.,  x.  11,  6),  and  the  erection  of 
a  remarkable  tower  by  Daniel  at  Ecbatane  {A7it{q., 
X.  11,  7).  Such  legends  prove  Daniel  to  have  been 
a  well-known  historical  personage  prior  to  the  Grecian 
period.  For  the  growth  of  all  such  legends  requires 
considerable  time.  The  legends  concerning  Daniel 
were  multiplied  in  later  times.  There  is  a  curious 
version  of  the  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  found  in 
the  Midrash  Bereshith  on  chap,  xxviii.  12,  Parasha 
Ixviii. 

2.  The  Book  of  Daniel  consists  of  two  parts.  I. 
The  first  contains  histories  connected  with  the  life  of 
Daniel  (chap,  i.-vi.).  II.  The  second  part  contains 
four  visions  of  Daniel  (chap,  vii.-xii.).     The  book  is 


DANIEL.  193 

written  in  two  languages  or  dialects.  Chap.  ii.  45-vii. 
inclusive  is  in  Aramaic  (miscalled  Chaldee),  and  the 
rest  of  the  book  is  in  Hebrew.  The  Aramaic  was 
probably  the  original  language  of  the  entire  book, 
the  Hebrew  portion  being  only  a  translation  from 
an  Aramaic  original.  Although  Aramaic  may  have 
been  used  as  a  kind  of  diplomatic  language,  it 
is  certain  that  it  could  not  have  been  the  language 
spoken  by  the  Chaldseans,  or  wise  men  of  Babylon. 
The  adverb  ^''O'li:?  (chap.  ii.  4),  translated  in  the 
English  Versions,  "  in  Syriac,'^  indicates  not  that  the 
Chaldgeans  addressed  Nebuchadnezzar  in  that  lan- 
guage, but  that,  from  that  particular  place  in  the 
book  onwards,  the  copyist,  or  editor  of  the  work, 
quotes  verbatim  from  an  Aramaic  original,  of  which 
the  present  Book  of  Daniel  probably  formed  only  a 
portion. 

An  exact  parallel  occurs  in  Ezra  iv.  7,  where  it  is 
said  "  the  adversaries  of  Judah  "  wrote  to  the  Persian 
king  against  the  Jews.  The  remark  is  there  made 
that  the  copy  of  the  letter  used  by  the  compiler  of 
that  book  was  written  H^P'lS^.,  i.e.,  in  Aramaic  cha- 
racters, and  not  in  the  old  Hebrew  (see  remarks  on 
p.  17  ff).  The  letter  is  further  said  to  have  been 
duly  interpreted,  i.e.,  translated,  although  into  what 
language  is  not  stated.  Then  follows  the  word 
JT'Dn^s,  indicating  that  Ezra  iv.  8  to  chap.  vi.  18 
was  copied  from  original  documents  in  Aramaic. 

Although  the  unity  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  generally 
conceded  (see  A2yp.),  it  has  the  appearance  rather  of  a 
series  of  excerpts  than  of  a  continuous  narrative,  and 
the  hypothesis  that  the  present  book  is  an  abridgment 


194  THE  PROPHETS. 

of  a  larger  work  (partly  preserved  in  its  original  lan- 
guage and  partly  translated)  has  much  in  its  favour. 
The  critics,  however,  are  not  agreed  on  these  points. 
The  phenomenon  of  a  book  written  partly  in  one 
dialect  and  partly  in  another  is  also  exhibited  in 
the  Book  of  Ezra.  The  fact  has  not  been  satisfac- 
torily explained  in  the  case  of  Daniel  (although  often 
attempted)  by  the  difference  in  the  subject-matter 
of  the  contents.  The  statements  mentioned  in  chap.  i.  1 
cause  serious  difficulties,  but  it  is  somewhat  hasty  to 
conclude  that  those  statements  are  incorrect ;  and 
even  if  incorrect,  the  error  may  be  the  fault  of  the 
translator. 

3.  Two  of  the  more  remarkable  of  the  miracles 
recorded  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  are  referred  to  in 
1  Mace.  ii.  59,  60.  The  book  was  extensively  used 
by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Baruch,  and  by  the 
writer  of  "the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah"  improperly 
attached  to  that  work.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  by 
the  majority  of  modern  critics  assigned  to  some  date 
between  B.C.  167  and  164.  But  the  alterations  made 
in  the  text  of  the  LXX.  version,  with  the  object  of 
modifying  passages  so  as  to  make  them  coincide  more 
distinctly  with  the  Maccabean  period,  tend  rather  to 
prove  the  Book  of  Daniel  itself  to  be  of  earlier  date. 
The  references  to  Babylonian  history,  Babylonian 
names  and  manners,  are  in  favour  of  its  early  com- 
position, and  some  of  these  points  have  been  confirmed 
by  recent  discovery.  The  Persian  words  in  the  book 
support  this  view,  for  such  words  would  not  have  been 
used  in  the  Greek  period.  On  the  other  hand 
fact  of  Greek  words  occurring  in  the  work  (whiciL 


DANIEL.  195 

though  once  denied  is  now  generally  admitted  by- 
scholars)  tells  on  the  other  side.  The  account  of  the 
Median  rule  is  in  favour  of  its  early  date,  and  con- 
firmatory of  the  theory  that  the  book  is  an  abridg- 
ment of  a  work  written  by  Daniel,  though  pro- 
bably incorporating  later  additions.  The  additions 
seem  to  have  been  mainly  inserted  in  chap,  xi., 
the  prophecies  of  which  form  the  chief  difficulties  of 
the  book.  The  miracles  recorded  in  the  book  do 
not  constitute  its  real  difficulties.  For  if  miracles 
ever  were  necessary,  it  was  when  the  people  of 
Jehovah  were  captives  in  Babylon,  and  the  victory 
over  Israel  was  looked  upon  as  a  victory  over 
Jehovah  Himself.  If,  however,  chap.  xi.  xii.  had 
been  written  subsequent  to  the  overthrow  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  the  end  of  that  monarch  would  have 
been  differently  described.  The  phenomena  alluded 
to  point  in  the  direction  of  a  re- editing  of  the  work 
shortly  before  the  close  of  the  Maccabean  period. 
The  Messianic  prophecies  found  in  the  book  are  of 
special  importance.  It  is  impossible  here  to  touch 
upon  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  book  to  be  derived 
from  a  critical  re\iew  of  its  prophecies.  The  book  is 
alluded  to  by  our  Lord  in  Matt.  xxiv.  15,  and  in  other 
places.  It  lies  at  the  base  of  several  of  the  prophecies 
of  the  New  Testament,  especially  those  of  the  Book  of 
Eevelation.  The  position  which  Daniel  occupies  in 
the  Hebrew  canon,  its  being  placed  in  the  Hagiographa 
and  not  among  the  prophets,  is  no  argument  against  its 
authenticity.  Nor  is  the  omission  of  Daniel's  name  from 
the  list  of  Jesus  Sirach  (chap,  xlix.)  more  remarkable 
than  the  omission  tLere  of  the  name  of  Ezra. 


196  THE  PROPHETS. 

The  writer  of  this  Introduction  hopes  shortly  to 
publish  a  commentary  on  Daniel  in  the  Pulpit  Com- 
mentary. In  that  commentary  he  intends- to  point  out 
that  even  if  the  latest  date  assigned  to  the  composition 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel  were  proved  correct,  the  book 
displays  a  knowledge  of  the  future  which  can  only  be 
ascribed  to  Divine  inspiration.  All  attempts  to  make 
out  the  fourth  empire  of  Daniel  (spoken  of  in  the  dream 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  chap,  ii,,  and  in  Daniel's  vision, 
chap,  vii.)  to  be  the  kingdom  of  Alexander's  succes- 
sors have  proved  decided  failures.  The  fourth  kingdom 
can  be  no  other  than  the  Roman,  which  is  described 
in  both  the  passages  referred  to  as  having  tv)o  distinct 
stages  :  (V)  an  undivided  stage,  in  which  the  empire 
was  strong  as  iron,  and  was  under  a  central  govern- 
ment j  (2)  a  divided  stage,  in  which  it  was  split  up  into 
a  plurality  of  kingdoms,  indicated  by  the  ten  toes  of 
the  image  (chap,  ii.)  and  by  the  ten  horns  of  the 
beast  (chap,  vii.),  which  kingdoms  no  device  or  power 
of  man,  or  any  schemes  of  matrimonial  alliances, 
could  ever  contrive  to  weld  together  again.  It  was 
in  this  weakened  stage  of  the  Roman  empire  that 
another  power  was  to  supplant  some  of  these  king- 
doms, and  bear  general  rule  over  the  whole,  but 
without  sufficient  strength  to  make  them  coalesce  into 
one  strong  empire.  An  author,  or  compiler,  who  had 
the  acquaintance  with  the  past  history  of  Babylon  and 
Persia  which  is  displayed  in  the  book,  could  not  pos- 
sibly regard  the  rule  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  as  being 
in  any  degree  whatever  as  powerful,  still  less  stronger, 
than  the  empires  of  Babylon,  Persia,  or  Greece. 

4.  The   Greek   version   of   Theodotion   for   a  long 


DANIEL.  197 

period  did  service  for  th'9  LXX.  version,  until  the 
latter  was  re-discovered  in  the  Chigian  Library  at 
Rome,  and  published  in  1772.  The  LXX.  version  is 
remarkable  for  many  important  omissions  and  addi- 
tions. The  principal  apocryphal  additions  to  the  Book 
of  Daniel  consist  of  (a)  The  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 
preceded  by  the  prayer  of  Azariah,  found  in  the  LXX. 
and  Vulgate,  at  chap.  iii.  24-90.  This  addition  was 
probably  composed  originally  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic. 
(6)  The  Story  of  Susanna,  which  in  the  Vulgate  occurs 
Dan.  xiii,  forms  in  the  LXX.  a  separate  book  with 
a  title  of  its  own.  The  story  has  received  considerable 
additions  in  some  v-^f  the  Versions.  It  is  devoid  of  any 
historical  value,  but  was  designed  to  teach  a  moral 
lesson.  The  Greek  text  is  probably  the  original,  (c) 
The  Story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon  forms  also  in  the 
LXX.  a  separate  book  entitled  ''  From  the  Prophecy 
of  Habbakuk  son  of  Jesus  of  the  tribe  of  Levi."  In 
the  version  of  Theodotion  that  story  is  attached  to 
the  Book  of  Daniel.  All  these  stories  are  fabulous, 
although  they  possess  some  interest. 

5.  The  commentaries  on  Daniel  are  innumerable.  On  no 
other  book,  save  the  Book  of  the  Revelation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  has  so  much  worthless  matter  been  written  in  the  shape 
of  exegesis.  Of  the  more  important  critical  commentaries  of 
modem  days  may  be  mentioned  L.  Bertholdt,  Daniel  aus  den 
Eeb.-Aram.  neu  ubersetzt  u.  erhl.,  1806,  1808  ;  v.  Lengerke, 
Komm.,  1835;  H.  A.  C.  Havernick,  Commentar,  1832;  Neue 
hrit.  Untersuchu7igen,  1838  ;  R.  Kranichfeld,  Das  Bitch  Daniel 
erliL,  1868  ;  Th.  Kliefoth,  1868  ;  C.  F.  Keil,  1869  ;  A.  Hilgen- 
feld,  Die  Proph.  Ezra  imd  Daniel,  etc.,  1863  ;  Ph.  S.  Desprez, 
Daniel,  or  the  ApocalyjJ-'^e  of  the  Old  Testament,  1865.  E. 
B.  Pusey,  Daniel  tlie  Prophet,  1864  ;   8rd  edit.  1869.     Pusey's 


198  THE  PROPHETS. 

Btatements  as  to  the  views  of  his  opponents  are  not  always 
reliable.  Zockler,  in  Lange's  Bihelwerlt,  1870,  English  trans- 
lation ;  Auberlen,  Daniel  u.  die  Offenharnng,  1854,  2nd  ed. 
1887;  English  translation  by  T.  and  T.  Clark.  J.  Meinhold, 
Dan  Buck  Daniel  avs^rjelegt,  1889,  in  St  rack  and  ZocMer's 
Comm. ;  also  his  Deitrdge  z.  Erkl.  des  Buck,  1888.  Fabre 
d'Envien  (Roman  Catholic),  Le  Livre  dii  piwphete  Daniel, 
Paris-Tonlouse,  1888  (2  vols).  Highly  interesting  is  the  Com- 
vientary  on  the  Booh  of  Daniel  hy  Jepliet  Ihn  AH,  the  Karaite, 
edited  and  translated  by  Prof.  D.  S.  Margoliouth,  in  the 
Anec.  Oxon.,  1889. 

Besides  the  above,  the  following  are  important.  (1)  In  favour 
of  the  authenticity  :  Hengstenberg's  Beitrdge,  1831,  trans- 
lated into  English,  T.  and  T.  Clark  ;  S.  P.  Tregelles,  Defence  of 
Autlienticity ,  1852  ;  J.  M.  Fuller,  Esmy  on  theAntJienticity  of 
Book  of  Daniel,  1864 ;  and  his  commentary  in  Speaker's 
Commentary,  1875, 1888  ;  W.  Volck,  Vindicics  Danielicc^,  1866  ; 
C.  P.  Caspari,  Zur  Elnfilhrvng  in  das  Buck  Daniel,  1869  ; 
F.  Lenormant,  Les  sciences  occultes  en  Asie,  1874  [on  Dan. 
i.-vi,]  ;  E.  Payne  Smith,  Expos,  of  the  Hut.  Portion  of  the 
Writi7igs  of  Daniel,  1886.  (2)  Against  the  authenticity :  F. 
Bleek,  Ueler  Verf.  u.  Zweck  des  B.  Dan.,  in  the  Berl.  Theol. 
Zeitschrift,  iii. ;  T.  K.  Cheyne's  article  in  EncycloiJCBdia  Brit., 
9th  edit.;  R.  Smend,  Jiid.  Apocalyptik  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift, 
1885 ;  H.  G.  Kirms,  Comm.  hist,  critica,  1828. 

There  are  many  important  monographs  on  portions.  G.  S. 
Faber,  The  Seventy  Weeks,  1811 ;  E.  Schrader,  Die  Sage  vom 
Wahnsinn  Nehuch.  in  the  Jahrh.  f.prot.  Theol.,  1881  ;  C.  H. 
Cornill,  Die  siebzig  Jahrwoche,  1889 ;  F.  Fraidl,  Die  Exegese 
der  siehzig  Wochen  Daniels  in  der  alien  u.  mittlercn  Zeit, 
Graz,  1883 ;  Th.  Noldeke,  on  Dan.  v.  25  ff.  in  the  Zeitschrift 
filr  Assyriologie,  Nov.  1886,  and  G.  Hoffmann  in  the  same 
journal  for  1887  ;  J.  Meinhold,  Beitrdgen,  zur  Erkldrung  des 
B.  Daniel,  1888  ;  van  Lennep,  De  zeventig  Jaarwccken  van 
Daniel,  1888. 


CHAPTER   XYI. 

B.     THE  TWELVE  MINOR   PROPHETS. 

"OESTDES  the  commentaries  noticed,  pp.  172-3,  on  the  pro- 
-■-^  phets  in  general,  the  following  special  commentaries  are 
of  importance  :  Ribera,  Conim.  in  lihr.  duod.  Proj^h.,  1590 ;  J. 
Calvini,  Prcelect.  in  Buodecim  Proph.  3Iin.,  Geneva,  1610 ; 
Casp.  Sanctii,  Comm.  in  duodec.  proph.  min.,  1621  ;  J.  Drusii, 
Comm.,  1627;  J.  Schmidt,  1685, 1687, 1689;  J.  Tarnovius,  Ccwiin. 
in  projjh.  miyi.,  c.  prtef.  J.  B.  Carpzov,  1688,  1706 ;  J.  Marck, 
Comm.  in  Proj?7i.  3Im.,  4  vols.,  4to,  1696-1701,  and  1734  folio  ; 
J.  D.  Dathe,  3rd  edit.,  1790 ;  G.  L.  Bauer,  Die  Til.  Propli., 
1786,  1790;  P.  Schegg (Roman  G^.tholxQ'),  Dield.  Projjh.iihers. 
u.  erU.,  2  vols.,  1854,  1862  ;  J.  A.  Theiner  (Rom.  Cath.),  1828, 
fifth  part  of  his  Comm..  uber  die  heilige  Schvift.  der  A.  T.;  E. 
Henderson,  Tlie  Minor  Prophets,  translated  with  comm.  crit., 
pUl.  and  eoeeg.,  1845,  2nd  ed.  1858;  Hitzig,  3te  Autl,  1863,  4te 
Aufl.,  edit,  by  Steiner,  1881  ;  Keil,  3te  Aufl.,  1888 ;  Bishop 
Wordsworth,  1875  ;  E.  B.  Pusey,  The  Minor  Prophets,  with  a 
comm.  explan.  and  pract.,  1877  ;  Knabenbauer  (Rom.  Cath.), 
Comm.  in proph.  min.,  Paris,  1886  ;  K.  von  Orelli,  see  p.  191; 
Archdeacon  Farrar's  Lives  and  Times  of  the  Elinor  Prophets  in 
Nisbet's  series  of  Men  of  the  Bible,  1890,  deserves  notice.  In 
Lange's  Bihcliuerh  the  writers  are  :  0.  Schm oiler  on  Hosea, 
Joel,  and  Amos,  1872  ;  P.  Kleinert  on  Oladiah  to  Zephaniah, 
1876 ;  J.  P.  Lange  on  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  1876.  In 
the  English,  or  rather  American,  edition  there  are  considerable 
additions  by  American  scholars.  The  post-exilian  prophets  are 
commented  on  in  that  edition  :  Haggai,  by  J.  E.  McCurdy  ; 
T  W.  Chambers,  ^(?<?7mWa7«. ;  J.  Packard,  J/^Z^c/i/,  1874.     In 


200    THE   TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

the  Sjyealier's  Commentary^  Ezekiel  to  Malachi  compose  one 
volume,  1876,  Preb.  Hustable  has  there  written  on  Hosea, 
and  Jonah  ;  E.  Gandell  on  J  mos,  Nahnm,  and  ZepTianiali ;  F. 
Meyrickon  Joel^  and  on  Ohadiah;  S.  Clark  on  Micah;  F.  C. 
Cook  on  Haljalikuli ;  W.  Drake  on  Haggai,  Zechai'iah,  and 
MalacM.  Principal  Douglas,  of  Free  Ch.  Coll.,  Glasgow,  has 
written  on  Tlie  Six  Intermediate  Miyior  Projjhets  (i.e.,  Obadiah 
to  Zephaniah),  in  T.  and  T.  Clark's  series  of  Handbooks,  1890. 


a.  The  Nine  Pre-exilian  Prophets. 
§  1.  Hosea. 

1.  Hosea,  ^^"^i^,  salvation,  Gr.  'Qa-rji,  was  the  son 
of  Beeri,  of  whom  nothing  is  known.  He  prophesied, 
like  Isaiah,  according  to  chap.  i.  1,  under  Uzziah, 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  Hezekiah,  and  during  a  portion  of  the 
reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  king  of  Israel,  whose  reign  in 
part  synchi'onised  with  that  of  tTzziah.  The  Book  of 
Hosea,  being  the  longest,  is  placed  first  among  the 
minor  prophets,  which  are  in  the  Hebrew  canon 
regarded  as  forming  together  one  book.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel,  and 
prophesied  somewhat  later  than  Amos,  with  whose 
prophecies  he  seems  to  have  been  acquainted.  Comp. 
Hosea  iv.  3  with  Amos  viii.  8 ;  and  Hosea  viii.  14, 
the  phraseology  of  the  latter  part  of  which  verse 
occurs  seven  times  in  Amos  i.  4-ii.  5.  The  super- 
scription (Hosea  i.  1)  causes  some  difficulty,  because 
no  allusion  is  made  in  the  book  to  the  Assyrian 
invasions  which  occurred  during  the  reigns  of  the 
kings  there  mentioned.  The  superscription,  however, 
may  have  been  appended  by  a  later  editor. 


THE  BOOK  OF  ROSEA.  201 

2.  The  Book  of  Hosea  consists  of  two  portions, 
probably  written  at  different  periods  of  the  prophet's 
life.  I.  Chap,  i.-iii.  describe  the  infidelity  of  Israe. 
to  God  and  God's  longsuffering  and  enduring  love. 
The  personal  history  of  the  prophet's  own  life  seems 
here  employed  in  an  allegorical  manner.  The  woman 
with  whom  Hosea  was  led  by  Providence  (like  Samson 
in  Judges  xiv.  1-4)  to  ally  himself  in  marriage,  proved 
unfaithful  to  her  marriage  vow,  and  had  to  be 
divorced.  Under  a  Divine  leading,  the  prophet  was 
led  to  take  her  back  from  her  life  of  sin,  and  restore 
her  to  her  former  position.  He  relates  the  story  of 
his  own  domestic  trials  as  a  picture  on  the  one  hand 
of  Israel's  faithlessness  towards  Jehovah,  and  on  the 
other  of  the  everlasting  love  manifested  by  Israel's 
God.  This  appears  to  be  the  truest  and  simplest  in- 
terpretation of  the  difficulties  in  the  opening  chapters, 
and  is  that  adopted  by  the  best  modern  critics.  II. 
The  second  portion  of  the  book  (chap,  iv.-xiv.)  sets 
forth  the  guilt  of  Israel  in  general,  the  sins  of  both 
priests  and  people  (chap,  iv.-viii.),  the  punishment 
coming  upon  Israel  (chap,  ix.-xi.),  and  the  readiness 
of  Jehovah,  notwithstanding  the  sin  of  His  people,  to 
receive  them  graciously  when  penitent,  and  to  pour 
a  blessing  on  them  (chap,  xii.-xiv.). 

3.  The  unity  of  the  book  is  unquestioned.  Its 
language  is  peculiarly  difficult,  and  it  is  often  hard 
to  comprehend  the  prophet's  meaning.  The  first  part 
is  written  in  prose,  the  second  in  poetry.  The  latter 
chapters  of  the  book  appear  to  have  been  composed 
at  very  different  times,  and  were  probably  put  together 
at  the  close  of  the  prophet's  life. 


202     THE  TWELVE  MINOR   PROPHETS. 

4,  The  following  are  the  most  important  commentaries  on 
the  book  :  D,  Parens,  Comm.  illuftt.  cum  transl.  trijy.  ex  Heh. 
et  Chald.,  etc.,  1605  ;  Seb.  Schmidt,  Comm.,  1687 ;  H.  v.  d. 
Hardt,  1703  ;  J.  H.  Manger,  Comm.  in  Jlosmm.,  1786  ;  Annot. 
hist.  exeg.  in  Has.,  auct.  L.  J.  Uhland,  1785-1797.  Ed.  Po- 
cocke's  English  Commentary  on  Hosea  is  the  largest  and  most 
important  of  the  older  commentaries.  It  was  first  published  in 
1685,  and  is  given  in  his  WorTis,  along  with  his  Commentary  on 
Joel,  Micah,  and  Malachi,  2  vols.,  folio,  1740.  Of  the'more 
modern,  besides  those  mentioned  on  p.  199  are  :  Schroder,  Die 
/  Proph.  Hos.,  Joel,  Aynos,  1829;  A.  Simson,  Der  Propli.  Hos. 
erlil.  V.  uhersetzt.,  1851  ;  A.  Wiinsche,  Der  PropTi.  Hos.  fibers, 
u.  erlil.  mit  Benxitzung  der  Targg.  u.  derj'dd.  Aiisleger,  1868, 
specially  important  for  the  Jewish  interpretations ;  W.  Nowack, 
Der  PropTi.  Hos.  erTi.,  1880  ;  Anton.  Scholz  (Roman  Catholic), 
Comm.  z.  Buche  des  Propli.  Hos.,  1882;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Hosea, 
with  Notes  and  Introdvction,  1884,  Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools,  an  improved  edition  in  1889,  small,  but  important. 
Points  connected  with  the  book  are  discussed  in  Hengstenberg's 
Christology,  and  in  Hoffmann's  Weissagimg  u,  Erfiillung.  See 
also  Franz  Delitzsch,  Hosea  u.  sein  Weissagungsluch,  in  the 
Erlangen  Zeitschr.  fur  Prot.  it.  Kirche,  1854;  Kurtz,  Die 
Ehe  des  Proph.  Hos.,  1859  ;  Redslob,  Die  Ditegritdt  d.  Stelle 
Hos.  vii.  4-10  hi  Frage  gestellt,  1842  ;  A.  H.  Sayce,  Booh  of 
Hosea  in  the  Light  of  Assyrian  Research,  in  the  Jewish 
Quarterly  Pevietv,  for  1889. 


§  2.  Joel. 

1.  Joel,  ^^?T',  whose  God  is  Jehovah,  LXX.  'IwTyA, 
was  the  son  of  Pethuel,  and  prophesied  in  Judah  and 
Jerusalem.  Owing  to  his  peculiar  mention  of  the 
piiests,  he  may  have  been  a  priest-prophet ;  bat  little 
more  can  be  learned  about  him  or  his  family.  As 
there  is  no  allusion  in  his  prophecies  to  a  king  of 
Judah,  and  he  addresses  himself  chiefly  to  the  elders. 


TEE  BOOK  OF  JOEL,  203 

it  has  been  conjectured  that  he  prophesied  during 
the  long  minority  of  king  Jehoash  of  Judah  (2  Kings 
xii.).  The  enemies  of  Judah  spoken  of  in  his  pro- 
phecies are  Tyre  and  Sidon,  along  with  the  Philistines, 
who  had  sold  Jewish  captives  into  the  hands  of  the 
Greeks.  Egypt  and  Edom  are  also  mentioned  in 
the  book;  but  not  a  word  is  spoken  concerning 
Assyria  or  Babylon,  or  of  the  later  enemies  of  Israel. 
Hence,  though  some  have  endeavoured  to  assign  the 
book  to  as  late  a  period  as  the  Maccabean  times,  the 
grounds  for  doing  so  are  very  insufficient.  The  locusts 
described  by  Joel  have  been  often  supposed  to  be 
allegorical  of  the  northern  foes.  But  the  language 
of  chap.  ii.  in  general  (see  ver.  4,  etc.)  is  more 
naturally  interpreted  cf  an  actual  plague  of  locusts 
and  other  devouring  insects  (see  specially  ver.  25). 
The  book  consists  mainly  of  one  grand  oration,  com- 
prising :  (I.)  a  lamentation  and  call  to  repentance 
(chap.  i.  1-ii.  17);  (II.)  with,  in  the  second  part,  the 
result  of  prayer,  and  a  description  of  the  blessings 
of  the  future  (chap.  ii.  18-end).  The  latter  portion 
contains  passages  which  refer  to  the  Messianic  days. 
The  final  struggle  of  good  and  evil  is  represented 
allegorically  as  taking  place  at  Jerusalem,  in  the 
valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  where  the  conclusive  victory 
is  gained,  and  Judah  is  delivered  from  her  foes.  The 
language  employed  does  not  admit  of  literal  inter- 
pretation. Most  remarkable  is  Joel's  prophecy  of 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  referred  to  in  the  l!^ew 
Testament. 

2.  Joel,  in  its  style  and  character  of  its  contents, 
is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the  books  of  the 


204     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS, 

Old  Testament.  The  pre-exilian  date  of  the  book, 
with  certain  variations  in  detail,  is  defended  by 
Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Credner,  Movers  in  Bihl. 
Chronologie,  1834;  Hitzig ;  Ewald;  Hoflfmann  in 
Weissagung  u.  Erfilllung;  Knobel,  Prophetismus,lS37 ; 
Delitzsch,  in  Luth.  Zeitschrift,  1851;  Wunsche ; 
Schrader  in  de  Wette's  Einleitung.  Others,  as 
Schroder  and  Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy^  consider 
it  to  have  been  written  shortly  before  the  exile. 
Hilgenfeld,  Zeitschrift  f.  wissensch.  Theol.,  x.,  Yatke, 
in  his  Einleitung,  and  Ad.  Merx  assign  it  to  the 
post-exilian  period,  after  B.C.  445. 

3.  Besides  the  commentaries  noted  p.  173  and  p.  199,  the 
following  are  of  importance  : — J.  Leusden,  Joel  explic.  in  quo 
text.  Ehr.  per  paraplir.  Chald.,  Mas.  magn.  et  parv.,  iierqiie 
trivm  prcestantiss.  Rahh.  Jarchi,  Ahen  Ezr.  and  B.  Kimclii 
comm.^ete.,  cui  in  fine  adj.  est  Ohadias  eodenifere  modo  illnst., 
1657  ;  C.  Hastei,  Proph.  Joelis,  1697.  Among  the  moderns 
are  A.  Svanborg,  Joel,  Lat.  versus  et  7iotispliil.  illustr.,  Upsala, 
1806;  Holzhausen,  1829;  Credner,  1831;  B.  Meier,  1841; 
A.  Wiinsche,  Die  Weissagungen  des  Proph.  J.  iibers.  %.  erhl., 
1872  ;  J.  A.  Karle,  Joel  hen  Pethuel  proplieta  eomm.^  1877 ; 
Ad.  Merx.,  Die  Proph.  des  Joel  und  ihre  Ausleger,  etc., 
beigegeb.  ist  der  Aethiopische  Text  des  Joel  bearb.  von  Prof. 
Dr.  A.  Dillmann,  1879.  This  work  is  specially  important  for 
its  valuable  history  of  icterpreters  from  the  earliest  times  to 
the  Eeformation.  A.  Scholz  (Rom.  Cath.),  Comm.  z.  Buche 
des  proph.  Joel,  1885  ;  G.  Preuss,  Die  Prophetie  Joel,  1889. 
Important  is  the  work  of  an  American  scholar,  W.  L.  Pearson, 
The  Prophecy  of  Joel :  its  unity,  its  aim,  and  the  date  of 
its  comp.,  Leipzig,  1885.  Later  still,  and  in  favour  of  a  post- 
exilic  date,  is  H.  Holzinger,  Sprachcliaracter  und  Ahfassungs- 
zeit  des  Buches  Joel,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  A.  T.  Wlssenschaft , 
1889.     S  solaee  A.  B.  Davidson  in  Expositor,  March,  1888 ; 


THE  BOOK  OF  AMOS.  205 

S.  Oettli,  Ber  Prophet  Joel,  Vortrag,  1888  ;  Eugene  la 
Savoureux,  Le  ^prophete  Joel :  introduction  critique,  traduction 
et  comm.,  1888. 


§  3.  Amos. 

1.  Amos  (DVor,  hurclen,  Gr.  'A/xtos),  was  a  shepherd 
or  herdman  of  Tekoa,  five  miles  south  of  Bethlehem, 
and  ten  distant  from  Jerusalem.  He  was  originally 
a  dresser  of  sycamore  or  fig-mulberry  trees.  He 
prophesied  in  the  days  of  Uzziah  and  of  Jeroboam  II., 
and  was  somewhat  earlier  than  Isaiah,  and  a  con- 
temporary of  Hosea.  Amid  the  successes  of  Jeroboam 
II.  he  prophesied  of  coming  judgment  and  defeat. 
He  visited  the  northern  kingdom,  and  carried  on  his 
prophetic  work  there.  Amaziah,  the  priest  of  Bethel, 
grossly  exaggerated  the  meaning  of  the  prophecies  of 
Amos  (chap.  vii.  10-17),  and  sought  to  stir  up 
Jeroboam  II.,  king  of  Israel,  against  him.  But  the 
prophet  boldly  continued  his  work,  relying  on  his 
Divine  commission.  Chap.  i.  and  ii.  announce  judg- 
ment upon  the  nations,  upon  Syria,  Philistia,  Tyre, 
Edom,  Moab,  Judah,  and  Israel.  Chap,  iii.-vi. 
contain  prophecies  concerning  Israel.  Chap,  vii.-ix. 
10  give  a  series  of  visions  indicative  of  coming  judg- 
ment. The  book  closes  with  promises  of  future 
blessings  (chap.  ix.  11-15). 


2.  See,  as  before,  pp.  173,  199.  Among  other  commentaries 
may  be  mentioned  :  J.  Gerhardi,  Adn.  posth.  in  Proph.  Amos 
et  Jon.,  1676  ;  J.  C.  Harenberg,  Amos  proph.  exposit.,  1763  ; 
L.  J.  Uhland,  Annot  ad  loca  qucBd.  Am.,  1779 ;  J.  S.  Vater, 
Amos  ubers.  u  erJd.  |810  ;  G.  Baur,  Ber  Prophet  Amos  erkl.^ 


206     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

184:7 ;  G,  Hoffmann,  Vei'suolie  zu  Amos  in  Zeitschrift  filr  die 
A.  T.  Wissenschaft,  1883.  See  A.  B.  Davidson  in  Expusltovt 
March  and  September,  1887. 


§  4.  Obadiah. 

1.  The  name  of  Obadiah  (nn^y^  worsliip'per  of 
Jehovah,  Gr.  'O^aSta?,  ^K^hiai)  is  very  common.  The 
Book  of  Obadiah  is  directed  against  Edom.  There 
is  much  uncertainty  as  to  the  time  in  which  it  was 
written,  and  as  to  the  events  to  which  it  refers. 
Many  clauses  contained  in  verses  1-9  are  found  verbatim 
in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  (chap.  xlix.  7-22),  so  that  the 
question  arises  which  prophet  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
original?  If  Jeremiah  quoted  -from  Obadiah,  then 
the  prophecy  of  the  latter  may  have  been  as  early 
as  the  reign  of  Jehoram  king  of  Judah,  when,  after 
the  revolt  of  Edom  from  Judah,  Jerusalem  was  sacked 
by  the  united  Philistines  and  Arabians  (2  Chron. 
xxi.  16,  17).  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Edomites 
may  then  have  acted  as  related  in  verses  11-14. 
In  favour  of  the  early  date  of  the  prophecy,  it 
is  urged  that  no  mention  is  made  of  Assyria  or 
Babylon,  and  moreover  Obadiah  ver.  17  is  closely 
akin  to  Joel  iii.  5.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
urged :  {a)  that  if  Jeremiah  had  the  prophecy  of 
Obadiah  before  him,  he  would  probably  have  quoted 
more  than  its  opening  portion;  and  (6)  that  Ps. 
cxxxvii.  7  sheds  light  on  Obad.  11-14.  But  these 
arguments  are  not  decisive.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  both  Obadiah  and  Jeremiah  quoted  from  some 
earher  prophecy.     On  the  whole,  the  arguments  in 


THE   BOOK  OF  JONAH.  207 

favour  of  the  early  date  of  Obadiah  seem  to  be  the 
stronger.      But  the  matter  is  by  no  means  certain. 

2.  The  wildest  legends  exist  with  regard  to  Obadiah,  such 
as  that  he  was  identical  with  the  Obadiah  who  was  over 
Ahab's  household  (1  Kings  xviii.).  So  Josephus  and  the 
Talmud.  He  has  also  been  identified  with  the  captain  of  fifty 
spared  by  Elijah  (2  Kings  i.  13)  ;  or  supposed  to  have  been 
a  converted  Edomite,  or  the  husband  of  the  widow-woman 
of  Zarephath  mentioned  1  Kings  xvii.  Among  the  special 
commentaries  on  the  book  that  of  Leusden  has  been  men- 
tioned on  p.  204  ;  Aug.  Pfeiffer,  Comm.,  1660  ;  J.  G.  Scbroer, 
1766  ;  C.  F.  Schnarrer,  Dissert,  phil.  in  Obad.,  1787 ;  H.  A. 
Grimm,  Jones  et  Obad.  orac.  Syriace,  ed.  Duislurg,  1799 ; 
Yenema,  Lectt.  in  Ob.,  with  additions  in  Verschuir,  Opusc, 
1810  ;  L,  Hendewerck,  Obadj.  orac.  in  IdumcBOS,  1836 ;  C.  P. 
Caspari,  Der  prophet  Obadja,  1842,  is  of  special  importance  ; 
W.  Seydel,  Vatioin.  Obad.  sec.  text.  Heb.  et  Chald.,  etc.,  1869  ; 
K.  F.  Weidner,  Studies  in  Obadiah  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
Bevleiu,  Oct.  18S7  (American).     See  also  pp.  173,  199  if. 


§  5.  Jonah. 

Jonah,  (n^V,  dove,  Gr.  IwvSs)  the  son  of  Amittai 
mentioned  in  this  book  is  no  doubt  identical  with 
the  prophet  of  the  name  who  lived  in  the  days  of 
Jeroboam  II.  (2  Kings  xiv.  25).  If  the  book  was 
actually  written  by  Jonah  it  would  be  the  earliest 
book  of  prophecy  in  the  Sacred  Records.  The  Book 
of  Jonah,  however,  nowhere  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  that  prophet.  Its  history  is  never  referred 
to  in  any  one  of  the  canonical  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Jonah  is,  however,  mentioned  among  the 
minor  prophets  in  2  Esdras  (4th  Esdi^as)  i.  40,  but 


208    THE   TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

chap.  i.  and  ii.  of  that  book  are  well-known  to  be 
additions  by  a  later  hand  to  a  book  which  is  in  itself 
of  very  questionable  antiquity  (see  p.  139).  Two  refer- 
ences to  Jonah's  prophecy  concerning  Nineveh  occur  in 
Tobit  xiv.  4,  8,  where  his  prophecy  is  spoken  of  as 
still  awaiting  fulfilment.  The  story  of  Jonah  in  the 
whale's  belly  is  referred  to  as  historical  in  3  Mace, 
vi.  8,  and  by  Josephus,  Antiq.,  ix.  10,  2.  Orthodox 
critics  have  generally  regarded  the  narrative  as 
history,  on  account  of  the  references  to  it  in  the 
New  Testament.  If  the  book  had  been  regarded  as 
an  historical  narrative  when  the  Hebrew  canon  was 
arranged,  it  would,  however,  scarcely  have  been  in- 
serted among  the  prophetical  books,  or  have  been  placed 
among  them  in  the  order  in  which  it  now  stands. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  regarding  the  work 
as  historical  are  serious.  Apart  from  the  marvels 
related  in  the  story,  the  utter  silence  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  in  reference  to  the  supposed  history  is  most 
unaccountable.  Jonah  himself  was  unquestionably  an 
historical  personage  (2  Kings  xiv.  25).  The  conver- 
sion of  the  Ninevites  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah,  if 
historical  fact,  casts  into  the  shade  all  the  other  events 
recorded  from  the  days  of  Moses  to  the  Restoration. 
Not  one  of  the  prophets  who  speak  of  Assyria  con- 
tain the  slightest  allusion  to  an  event  which  in  itself 
would  have  placed  Nineveh's  guilt  in  the  darkest  light. 
Most  of  the  orthodox  commentators  have  felt  the 
latter  difficulty,  and  accordingly  have  assumed  the 
conversion  of  the  Ninevites  to  have  been'  merely  a 
transient  incident. 

It  has  also  been  tacitly  assumed  that  our  Lord 


THE  BOOK  OF  JONAH.  209  ' 

viewed  the  narrative  as  historical  fact.  But  such  a 
conclusion  is  inconsistent  with  the  references  to  the 
story  in  Luke  xi.  29  ff. ;  Matt.  xii.  39  ff.  The  repent- 
ance of  the  Ninevites  is  not  referred  to  by  Christ  as 
a  merely  transient  movement,  but  as  a  great  fact, 
the  fruits  of  which  are  yet  to  be  manifested  in  the 
day  of  judgment  to  the  confusion  of  the  men  of 
Christ's  own  generation.  The  book  itself  does  not 
give  any  countenance  to  the  idea  that  the  conversion 
of  the  ISTinevites  was  a  mere  passing  wave  of  popular 
feeling.  If  it  were  only  such,  it  might  be  asked  how 
did  it  differ  essentially  from  the  conversion  of  the 
thousands  of  the  men  of  our  Lord's  generation  who, 
under  temporary  conviction  of  sin,  were  "baptized 
with  the  baptism  of  repentance  "  under  the  preaching 
of  John  the  Baptist?  But  if  the  repentance  of 
"  Nineveh,  that  great  city,"  was  indeed  an  historical 
fact,  if  its  people  indeed  repented  of  their  murders, 
their  sorceries,  their  idolatry,  fornication,  and  thefts 
(comp.  Rev.  ix.  21),  on  what  principle  is  the  silence 
about  such  a  remarkable  fact  of  the  Book  of 
Kings,  and  the  silence  of  such  prophets  as  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Nahum,  Zephaniah,  to  be  accounted  for? 
Every  one  of  our  Lord's  references  to  the  Book  of 
Jonah  harmonises  with  the  theory  that  the  book  was 
a  book  of  prophecy,  a  prophetic  parable,  in  which  by 
the  repentant  Ninevites  those  Gentiles  were  repre- 
sented— and  they  were  not  few  in  number  (comp. 
Esther  viii.  17) — who  in  the  days  of  Israel's  exile 
beheld  the  wonders  wrought  by  Jehovah  in  theii* 
midst,  and  "turned  unto  God  from  idols  to  serve  a 
living  and  true  God."     Whatever  theory  of  the  book 

14 


210     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

be  correct,  our  Lord  could  have  referred  to  it  in 
no  other  way  than  He  did.  The  New  Testament 
references  decide  nothing,  except  that  the  book  is  in 
some  way  or  other  a  book  of  prophecy.  Consequently, 
the  question  whether  the  book  is  also  historical  must 
be  decided  from  internal  evidence  alone. 

If  the  book  be  a  prophetic  parable,  or  (as  Kleinert 
styles  it)  a  historico-symbolical  prophecy,  the  place  it 
occupies  in  the  Hebrew  canon  is  most  appropriate. 
The  Divine  inspiration  and  grandeur  of  the  book 
become  then  more  apparent,  and  all  the  difficulties 
connected  with  it  completely  vanish.  Israel  is  suit- 
ably represented  in  such  a  prophetic  allegory  by  the 
prophet  Jonah,  for  Jonah  was  one  of  the  earliest  of 
the  prophets.  Israel  "  could  only  be  properly  repre- 
sented in  an  allegory  by  a  prophet,  and  only  by  a 
prophet  who  (owing  to  the  incidents  of  his  pei^onal 
history  being  unknown)  might  without  violence  to 
actual  history  form  a  leading  character  in  such  a 
divinely-constructed  parable."  The  allegory  depicts 
the  history  of  Israel,  and  under  it  the  history  of  the 
Messiah,  just  as  the  title  "  servant  of  Jehovah  "  is 
used  of  Israel  generally,  then  of  the  faithful  in  Israel, 
and  lastly  of  the  Messiah.     See  p.  179. 

The  critics  who  have  denied  the  historical  character 
of  the  book  have  usually  regarded  it  as  (1)  purely 
legendary,  or  (2)  as  containing  legends  resting  on  some 
slight  basis  of  fact,  or  (3)  as  wholly  fictitious,  depending 
for  its  importance  solely  on  its  moral  or  religious 
teaching.  The  view  which  regards  it  as  a  prophetico- 
historical  allegory  is  entirely  different,  and  quite  con- 
sistent with  a  belief  in  the  Divine  inspiration  and 


THE  BOOK  OF  JONAH.  211 

authority  of  the  book.  According  to  the  latter  theory, 
Jonah  represents  Israel  fleeing  from  the  duty  imposed 
on  the  nation  in  its  prophetic  character  as  a  witness 
for  God.  The  sleep  of  Jonah,  the  storm  on  the  sea, 
Jonah's  bold  confession  of  faith  when  aroused  from 
slumber,  admit  of  easy  explanation.  The  world- 
power  is  actually  represented  in  the  prophets  as 
a  sea-monster  (see  Isa.  xxvii. ;  Jer.  li.  34).  That  sea- 
monster  is  represented  as,  in  the  person  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, swallowing  up  Israel  (li.  34).  Bel,  the 
god  of  Babylon,  is  forced  to  disgorge  his  prey  (li.  44). 
Israel's  duration  in  exile  is  represented  by  Hosea  as 
lasting  for  "three  days"  (Hosea  vi.  2).  The  prayer 
of  Jonah  in  tl^  fish's  belly  (chap,  iii.,  compare  Israel 
in  the  maw  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Jer.  H.  34)  is  made 
up  of  a  number  of  sentences  taken  from  Psalms  com- 
posed during  the  Exile.  The  language  even  of  vv.  5,  6 
(the  only  original  verses  in  that  poem)  contains  phrases 
elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  Exilic  times,  or  to  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt  as  recorded  in  Exodus.  See 
the  ordinary  marginal  references  in  the  English  Bibles. 
The  "  prayer  "  of  Jonah  contains  no  confession  of  sin, 
and  no  petition  for  deliverance.  Such  facts  are  highly 
significant.  They  are  very  serious  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  the  literal  explanation;  they  fall  in  exactly 
with  the  allegorical.  No  part  of  that  "  prayer  "  can 
be  regarded  as  descriptive  of  a  man  actually  located 
in  a  fish's  belly. 

The  second  portion  of  the  Book  of  Jonah,  when 
viewed  as  a  prophetical  allegory,  is  even  more  remark- 
able than  the  first.  The  closing  portion  of  it,  and  the 
mode  in  which  the  narrative  is  suddenly  broken  off, 


212     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

are  remarkably  analogous  to  the  second  part  of  our 
Lord's  great  parable  (Luke  xv.  25-32).  Viewed  in 
this  light  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  seen  to  contain  several 
important  predictions  of  Messianic  times,  inclusive  of 
the  prophecy  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  referred  to  in 
the  New  Testament.  Even  if  the  incidents  related  in 
the  Book  of  Jonah  could  be  proved  to  be  historical 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term,  the  importance  of 
those  incidents  is  mainly  dependent  upon  their  alle- 
gorical or  prophetical  character;  as  are,  also,  those 
facts  of  Abrahamic  history  allegorized  by  St.  Paul  in 
Gal.  iv.  21-31.  The  Book  of  Jonah  is  mainly  im- 
portant as  a  book  of  prophecy. 

2.  The  above  is  condensed  from  the  essay  on  "The  Book 
of  Jonah  considered  from  an  allegorical  point  of  view"  in  my 
Biblical  Essays  (T.  and  T.  Clark,  1886).  The  first  helpful 
suggestions  on  the  point  were  derived  from  J.  S.  Bloch's 
Studien  zur  GescMchte  der  Sammhmg  der  alt-hehrdische  Lite- 
ratiir,  Leipzig,  1875,  which  reached  a  second  edition  in  1882. 
Paul  Kleinert,  a  most  orthodox  theologian,  adopts  substantially 
the  same  view  in  Lange's  Bibehvei'k,  although  it  is  not  brought 
out  with  sufficient  clearness ;  and  Professor  Elliott,  the 
American  scholar,  who  has  translated  and  enlarged  Kleinert's 
commentary  in  the  English  edition,  makes  a  gentle  protest 
against  the  theory.  T.  K.  Cheyne  has  in  the  Theological  Review 
(1877)  partly  supported  the  allegorical  view,  although  he  holds 
partly  to  the  myth  theory.  The  allegorical  view  has  been 
very  differently  presented  by  Herm.  von  der  Hardt  in  his 
Aenigmata  2^^'isci  orbis,  1723,  and  in  other  writings ;  by 
Gottfr.  Less  in  his  Vermischte  Schriften,  1.  1782  ;  by  A.  W. 
Krahmer  in  his  Hist.  hrit.  Untersuchiaig  in  Schi-iftforscher, 
Part  i.,  1839  ;  by  K.  C.  Palmer  in  Scheerer's  Archiv.,  1801  ; 
and  by  Friedr.  Bergman  in  his  Jonah  eine  alt.  Test.  Parahel, 
1885,     The  number  of  commentaries  written  on  the  book, 


THE  BOOK  OF  MIC  AH.  213 

independently  of  those  noted  on  the  Minor  Prophets  in 
general  (p.  199),  is  very  large.  Leusden's  Jonas  iUvst.  per 
paraph.  Chald.,  RascM,  Ihn  Ezra,  etc.,  1656  and  1692,  is  still 
useful.  Fredrichsen,  Krit.  Uelers.  d.  verscJi.  Ansichten,  2te 
Aufl.,  1842.  Prof.  W.  Wright's  JbnaJi  in  Cliald.,  Syr.,  Aeth., 
and  Arab.,  xoitliGorresp.  glossaries,  1857,  is  useful  for  students. 
The  literature  on  the  book  is  given  in  the  English  edition  of 
Lange's  Bilehverh,  and  more  largely  in  M.  M.  Kalisch's  Bible 
Studies,  Part  ii..  The  Booh  of  Jonah,  1878,  whose  critical  and 
philological  remarks  are  important.  Kalisch,  however,  has 
strangely  not  noticed  Bloch's  Stndien,  nor  the  remarks  of 
Kleinert  in  his  Introduction  to  the  book.  The  strength  of  the 
objections  to  the  historical  view  cannot  be  understood  by 
those  who  only  read  such  commentaries  as  those  of  Pusey  in 
his  Minor  Propliets,  Huxtable  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary, 
or  R.  A.  Bedford's  Studies  in  the  Book  of  Jonah,  1883.  Sug- 
gestive from  the  same  point  of  view,  although  ignoring  all  the 
critical  difficulties,  is  Dr.  H.  Martin,  The  Prophet  Jonah,  his 
Character  and  Mission  to  Nineveh,  2nd  edit.,  Edin.,  1877  ; 
W.  Bohme,  Die  Composition  des  Bitches  Jona  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fur  die  alt-test.  Wissenschaft,  1887,  attempts,  not  very  success- 
fully, to  prove  that  the  book  is  a  composition  of  various  writers 
— Jahvist,  Elohist — and  editors.  Archdeacon  Perowne's  little 
commentary  in  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges 
contains  many  good  remarks,  but  has  not  grasped  '*  the  other 
side  "  of  the  question. 


§  6.   MiCAH. 

1.  Micah,  HD^p,  a  shortened  form  of  ^^'^''Q,  Who 
is  like  Jehovah?  Compare  ^^'^V,  Michael,  vjho  is 
like  God?  The  LXX.  transliterate  it  Mixaia<i.  It 
is  exactly  the  same  name  as  that  borne  by  the  prophet 
who  lived  in  the  days  of  Ahab,  spoken  of  in  1  Kings 
xxii.  8-28.    The  author  of  the  book  was  of  Moreshath- 


214    THE   TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

Gath  (chap.  i.  14),  which  belonged  to  Judah,  and  pro- 
phesied, according  to  chap.  i.  1,  under  Jotham,  Ahaz, 
and  Hezekiah.  The  book  falls  into  three  parts.  I. 
Chap,  i.,  ii.  describe  the  judgments  which  were  to  fall 
on  Israel  and  Judah  on  account  of  their  sin.  That 
prophecy  closes  with  a  prediction  of  recovery  frora 
exile  (chap.  ii.  12,  13).  II.  Chap.  iii,-v.  describe 
vividly  the  sin  of  the  people  and  their  punishment 
in  striking  connection  with  a  grand  Messianic  pro- 
phecy. III.  Chap,  vi.-vii.  contain  exhortations  to 
repentance  and  warnings.  Voices  of  penitence  are 
admirably  intermingled  in  those  chapters  with  assu- 
rances of  salvation.  Some  modern  critics  maintain 
that  the  portions  chap.  iv.  9-14  and  chap.  vii.  7-20 
are  later  insertions ;  but  the  reasons  adduced  do  not 
justify  the  conclusion.  Ewald  considers  chap.  vi. 
and  vii.  to  have  been  composed  by  another  prophet 
in  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  Stade  maintains  that  only 
chap,  i.-iii.  (exclusive  of  chap.  ii.  12,  13)  can  have 
been  written  by  Micah.  Reuss  considers  almost  the 
whole  book  to  be  genuine. 

Much  discussion  has  arisen  whether  Micah  iv.  1-4 
is  the  original  of  Isa.  ii.  2-4,  or  vice  versd,  or  whether 
both  prophets  have  quoted  from  some  earlier  prediction. 
Eminent  critics  have  argued  on  all  the  three  sides. 
The  proj^hecy  of  Micah  iii.  12  is  distinctly  quoted  in 
Jer.  xxvi.  18.  The  most  remarkable  prophecy  of  the 
book  is  that  of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  at  Bethlehem 
(chap.  V.  2,  3),  which  is  of  still  more  importance 
when  viewed  in  relation  to  the  context  in  which  it 
is  found.  Yery  important,  too,  are  the  prophet's 
references  to  Gen.  iii.  in  chap.  vii.  17  ;  to  the  history 


THE   BOOK  OF  NAIIUM.  215 

of  the  patriarchs  in  chap.  vii.  20 ;  to  the  exodus,  and 
to  the  story  of  Balaam  in  chap.  vi.  4,  6. 

2.  The  best  commentaries,  in  addition  to  those  mentioned 
p.  199,  are  those  of  Ed,  Pococke,  Commentary  on  Micah  and 
Malachi,  1677,  or  in  his  Works,  1740.  C.  F.  Schnurrer  and 
J.  G.  Andler,  Atiimadv.  phil.  crit.  ad  vatic.  M.  ex  coll.  vers. 
Grocc.reliquarumq.  in  Polygl.Lond.  edit.,  1783.  G.  L.  Bauer, 
Ajiimadv.  crit.  in  duo  priora  proph.  M.  capp.,  1790.  C.  P. 
Caspari,  Ueher  Micha  den  Morasth.  ii.  seine  proph.  Schrift., 
Christiania,  1852 ;  T.  Eoorda,  Comm.  in  vat.  3IichcB,  1869. 
A.  Thomas,  Essai  sur  le  Proph.  3fichee,  Geneva,  1853 ;  L. 
Baulme,  Les  PropMties  de  Mich.,  Toulouse,  1866.  See  also 
Hengstenberg,  Christology,  vid.  p.  173.  Eeinke  (Koman 
Catholic),  Iter  Prophet  Micha,  1874.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Micah, 
with  Notes  and  Introd.,  1882,  2nd  edit.  B.  Stade,  in  Zeitschrift 
f.  d.  alt-test.  Wissenschaft,  1881,  1883.  V.  Eyssel,  Unter- 
snchimgen  ilher  d.  Textgestalt  u.  d.  Echtheit  des  Buches  Micha. 
Ein  hrit.  commentar  zu  Micha  is  most  important,  1887. 
W.  Nowack,  in  Stade's  Zeitschrift,  1884.  See  Appendix. 

§  7.  Nahum. 

1.  Nahum,  D-inJ,  rich  in  comfort,  Gr.  Naov/x.,  be- 
longed to  Elkosh,  a  village  not  yet  identified,  though 
probably  belonging  to  Galilee.  There  are  many 
different  opinions  on  the  meaning  of  Elkosh.  The 
identification  with  Alkush  near  Mosul  is  connected 
with  a  tradition  which  cannot  be  traced  back  earlier 
than  the  sixteenth  century.  The  town  in  question 
is  in  all  probability  of  much  later  origin  than  the 
time  of  Nahum.  His  short  book,  which  is  occupied 
wholly  with  "  the  burden  of  Nineveh,"  "  the  bloody 
city"  (chap.  iii.  1),  probably  goes  back  to  B.C.  660. 
For  the  destruction  of  No-amon  (Thebes  in  Egypt), 
which  is  spoken  of  as  a  recent  event  (chap.  iii.  8  ii.)^ 


216     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

was  accomplished  by  Assurbanipal,  king  of  Assyria, 
in  B.C.  664  or  663.  The  descriptions  given  by  Nahum 
are  exceedingly  fine  and  vivid,  and  the  book  is 
deservedly  classed  among  the  finest  productions  of  Old 
Testament  Hterature. 

2.  The  special  commentaries  on  the  book  are  numerous,  and 
the  literature  connected  with  the  overthrow  and  fall  of  Nineveh 
of  great  extent.  Among  the  commentaries  may  be  mentioned : 
C.  F.  Staudlin,  Hosea,  Nalmm  unci  Hahakhuli  neu  ilhersetzt 
imd  erldutert,  17<S6.  Vatic.  Nah.  observat.  pliil.  illustr.  Diss, 
praes.  M.  C.  M.  Agrell,  resp.  N.  S.  Colliander,  TJpsala,  1788. 
H.  A.  Grimm,  Nah.  neu  ilhersetzt  m.  erhl.  Anm.,  1790.  J. 
Bodin,  2Vah.  lat.  vers,  et  notU  pMl.  illust.,  Upsala,  1806.  O. 
Strauss,  Nahumi  de  Nino  Vat.  expl.  ex  Assyr.  monum..  illust., 
1853.  C.  A,  Blomquist,  Upsala,  1853.  F.  Gihl,  Upsala,  1860. 
Vance  Smith,  Propliecies  relating. to  Nineveh  and  the  Assyrians, 
1857.  M.  Breiteneicher,  N'm.  u.  Nahum,  1861.  L.  Keinke 
(Kom.  Cath.),  Kritilt  der  alien  Versionen  des  Nah.,  1867, 
E.  Mahler,  Untersuchungen  im  Bv.che  Nahum  anf  den  JJnter- 
gang  Nin.  hezogenen  Fi?isterniss,  mit  2  Karten,  Wien,  1886, 
aus  Sitzungshericht  d.  k.  Acad.  d.  Wiss.     See  also  p.  199 

§  8.  Habakkuk. 

1.  Habakkuk,  I^-lpSH,  LXX.  'Afx/SaKov/x,  was  a 
member  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  is  termed  a  prophet 
in  chap.  i.  1,  and  was  possibly,  as  Delitzsch  supposes, 
one  of  the  Temple-singers,  as  his  poem  or  prayer 
(chap,  iii.)  was  intended  for  temple  use  (chap.  iii.  19). 
According  to  the  superscription  of  the  apocryphal 
"  Bel  and  the  Dragon  "  in  the  Chigian  Codex  of  the 
LXX.  he  was  "of  the  tribe  of  Levi,"  the  prophet 
being  identified  from  the  similarity  of  name  with  the 
Habakkuk  mentioned  in  the  end  of  that  piece,  who 
in  the  text  of  Theodotion  is  termed  "  Habbacuc  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  HABAKKUK.  217 

prophet  in  Judjea"  (see  Fritzsche,  Lib.  Apoc.  V.  T. 
Greece).  Other  legends  need  not  here  be  mentioned. 
His  date  is  uncertain.  Delitzsch  supposes  him  to 
have  lived  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  because  Zephaniah 
(i.  7)  seems  to  quote  Hab.  ii.  20,  and  Jeremiah  (iv. 
13  and  v.  6)  appears  to  quote  Hab.  i.  8.  Most  other 
critics  consider  the  prophet  to  have  prophesied  in  the 
early  part  of  Jehoiakim's  reign.  He  prophesied  about 
the  Chaldsean  invasion.  The  book  is  semi-dramatic. 
Chap.  i.  contains  Habakkuk's  complaint  (ver.  2-4),  and 
Jehovah's  reply  (ver.  5-11)  with  the  prophet's  comment 
thereupon  (ver.  12-17).  In  the  second  chapter  the 
prophet  sets  himself  on  the  watch-tower,  and  obtains 
a  reply  promising  the  ultimate  destruction  of  the 
foe,  whenever  the  special  work  which  that  enemy  was 
raised  up  to  perform  should  have  been  accomplished. 
The  grand  poem  of  chap.  iii.  describes  a  Divine  theo- 
phany,  in  which  the  past  glories  connected  with  the 
redemption  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage  are 
dwelt  upon,  in  order  to  encourage  the  righteous  to 
stay  upon  their  God  in  the  sore  days  of  trouble  and 
trial  which  were  then  at  hand. 

2.  The  Rabbinical  commentary  on  Habakkuk  by  Abarbanel 
lias  been  translated  into  Latin  by  Sprecher,  1709,  and  that  of 
R.  Tanchura  has  been  edited  by  S.  Munk,  6V>w?».  sur  le  livre 
de  Hah.,  1843.  Of  the  later  critical  commentaries  may  be 
mentioned  :  Staudlin,  Ilosea,  Nah.,  und  Hah.  neu  ilhers.  u. 
erkl.,  1786.  Wahl,  Hah.  neu  ilhers.  mit  EM.,  etc.,  1790  ;  B.  P. 
Kofod,  Cliah.  vatic,  comm.  crit.  atque  exeg.,  1792.  "Wolff,  Der 
Proph.  Hah.,  1822.  Baumlein,  Covivi.  de  Hah.  vatic,  1840 
Especially  Franz  Delitzsch,  De  Haljh.  Froph.  vita  atqiie  estate, 
etc.,  1842,  and  Der  Propli  HahaTivk  aiisgelegt,  1843.  Gumpach, 
Der  Propli.  Hah.,  1860  ;  and  Reinke  (Roman  Catholic),  Der 


218     TUE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS, 

Proph.  Hah.,  1870.  Ant.  J.  Baumgartner,  Le  projjJiete 
Hahalikiiky  Introduction  cTitique  et  exegkse,  Leipzig,  1885. 
E.  Sinker,  The  Psalm  of  HahaliTiuh,  a  revised  translation, 
with  critical  and  exegetical  notes,  1890,  See  also  the  writers 
on  Minor  Prophets,  p.  199. 

§  9.  Zephaniah. 

1.  Zephaniah,  n^|5V*  (Jehovah  hides^  or  protects), 
LXX.  So<^ovtas,  was  probably  a  great-grandson  of 
Hezekiah  the  king  (chap,  i  1),  although  the  omission 
of  the  phrase  "  the  king  "  in  that  passage  has  caused 
some  difficulty  to  critics.  He  lived  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah  prior  to  the  great  reformation  accomplished 
by  that  king  (comp.  chap.  i.  4-6  and  chap.  iii.  1-5). 
He  vividly  depicts  a  great  day  of  wi^ath  coming 
on  Judah  and  the  kingdoms  round  about,  as  well 
as  upon  Assyria  and  Ethiopia.  He  promises,  how- 
ever, Messianic  blessings  to  the  remnant  of  Israel, 
which  is  to  be  purified  by  affliction  and  brought  back 
from  captivity.  He  moreover  predicted  that  the  same 
blessings  would  be  bestowed  also  upon  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  critics  that 
the  prophecies  of  Zephaniah  refer  to  the  Scythian 
inroads  upon  Judah,  but  that  view  cannot  be  sus- 
tained. The  Babylonian  invasion  is  evidently  that 
predicted,  although  the  reports  of  the  Scythian 
barbarities  probably  gave  a  special  tinge  to  the 
predictions.  The  Messianic  age  is  vividly  depicted, 
although  the  Messiah  Himself  is  not  distinctly  alluded 
to.  Jehovah  is,  however,  represented  as  the  king 
of  Israel  "  in  the  midst  of  His  people "  (chap, 
iii.  15),  in  language  which  shows  that  the  Messianic 


TEE  BOOK  OF  IIAGGAI.  219 

prophecies  of  Isaiah  (ix.  5,  xii.  6)  were  well  remem- 
bered and  referred  to.  There  are  other  remarkable 
references  to  Isaiah  in  the  last  portion  of  chap.  iii. 
Compare  ver.  9  with  Isa.  vi.  5,  ver.  10  with  Isa.  xviii. 
1.  Compare  also  ver.  10,  11 — correctly  translated  on 
the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version — with  Isa.  Ixvi.  20, 
which  reference  might  be  adduced  as  an  argument 
for  the  unity  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah. 

2.  Martin  Bucer  wrote  a  commentary  on  Zephaniah  in  1528 
which  is  still  of  value.  Besides  the  writers  on  the  Minor 
Prophets  mentioned  p.  199,  the  most  important  in  connection 
with  Zephaniah  are  :  Cramer,  Scyth.  Denkmdler  in  Palcestma, 
nil.  D.  von  Coelln,  S^icil.  observ.  exeg.  crit.  in  Zeph.,  1818. 
Her  wig  in  Bengel's  Archiv,  Band  i.  ;  E.  Ewald,  tfhers.  mit 
AnmerTi.,  1827.  F.  A.  Strauss,  Vaticinia  Zeph.  comm.  illvstr., 
1843.  V.  S.  Johnson,  Upsala,  1857 ;  L.  Eeinke  (Roman 
Catholic),  Ber  Proph.  Zepli.,  1868.  Friedr.  Schwally,  Das 
Buck  Ssefanja,  eine  hist.-hritische  Untersuchung,  in  the 
ZeitscTirift  f.  A.  T.  Wisseyischaft,  1890. 

h.  The  Post-exilian  Prophets. 
§  10.  Haggai. 
1.  Haggai  {^l'^,  Festal,  Gr.  'Ayyatos,  probably  born 
on  some  great  festal  day),  was  one  of  those  who 
returned  from  captivity  with  the  first  band  of 
Israelites,  under  the  leadership  of  Zerubbabel.  The 
prophecies  contained  in  the  book  were  all  delivered 
within  the  space  of  some  three  months.  Short  as  they 
were,  they  were  the  means  of  stirring  up  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua  to  go  forward  with  the  work  of  re- 
building the  Temple,  which,  though  begun  in  the 
second  year  of  Cyrus,  b.c.  535,  had,  owing  to  oppo- 
sition, been  abandoned  in  despair  (Ezra  iv.  v.).     The 


220    TEE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

impetus  given  by  his  prophecies,  and  those  of  Zech- 
ariah,  to  that  work  is  mentioned  by  Ezra  (chap.  v.  1, 
vi.  14).  Ewald  conjectures,  from  Haggai  ii.  3,  that 
Haggai  was  one  of  the  old  men  who  had  seen  the 
first  temple  in  its  glory;  but  the  passage  does  not 
fully  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  Haggai's  prophecies 
contained  in  this  book  are  four  in  number,  and  are  dis- 
tinguished for  their  brevity.  The  passage  in  chap.  ii. 
6-9  is  Messianic,  and  is  referred  to  in  Heb.  xii.  26-28. 
It  is  incorrect  to  regard  the  phrase  in  ver.  7,  trans- 
lated in  the  Authorised  Version  "the  desire  of  all 
nations,"  as  a  title  of  the  Messiah.  The  correct  trans- 
lation is  "the  desirable  things  of  all  nations  "  (."Revised 
Version),  which  is  abundantly  proved  from  the  fact 
that  the  verb  in  the  clause  ("  shall  come  ")  is  in  the 
plural.  "  The  desirable  things  "  spoken  of  were  the 
silver  and  the  gold  required  for  the  use  of  the  temple. 
But  "the  latter  glory"  of  that  second  temple,  in 
which  alone  it  outshone  the  former  in  glory,  was 
that  it  was  the  place  in  which  the  manifestation  of 
the  Messiah  actually  occurred,  and  that  epiphany  is 
the  event  by  which  the  prophecy  of  Haggai  was 
finally  accomplished. 

2.  Many  of  the  commentaries  on  Haggai  deal  also  with  the 
two  other  post-exilian  prophets,  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  as,  for 
instance,  the  Latin  commentaries  of  F.  Baldwin,  1610  ;  Willius, 
1638  ;  Varenius,  1662.  Among  the  later  commentaries  on  these 
three  prophets  are  those  of  W.  Pressel,  1860  ;  T.  Y.  Moore,  The 
Propliets  Haggai^  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  New  York,  1856  ; 
Aug.  Kohler,  Di^  nachexiUsche  Prophcten,  Haggai,  1860; 
Sacharja,  1861  ;  Malcachi,  1865  ;  Reinke,  Ber  Proph.  Haggai,, 
1868 ;  J.  P.  Lange  in  his  Pihelwerl,  1876.  In  the  English 
translation  of  Lange 's  Pihelicerh,  in  place  of  J.  P.  Lange's 


THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAH.  221 

own  commentary  on  these  books  (which  appeared  subsequently 
to  the  American  edition),  the  Book  of  Haggai  is  expounded 
by  J.  F.  McCurdy,  the  Book  of  Zechariah  by  T.  W.  Chambers, 
and  the  Book  of  Malachi  by  J.  Packard. 

On  Haggai,  among  the  commentaries  in  Latin  are  the  Scholia 
of  J.  Mercer,  which  appeared  in  1551 ;  the  commentary  of 
Grynffius  in  1581  ;  Reinbeck's  Exercit.  in  projJh.  Hagg.y 
1692  ;  D.  Pfeffinger,  Notce,  1703  ;  Woken,  Annot.  exeg.,  1719  ; 
N.  Hesslen,  Vatic.  Hagg.,  Lund.  1699.  The  passage  in  Hagg. 
ii.  6-9  is  discussed  in  Hengstenberg's  Christology,  Hofmann's 
Weissagung  u.  Erfiillung,  J.  P.  Smith's  Scrijjhire  Testimony 
to  the  Messiah^  and  a  number  of  smaller  monographs. 

§  11.  Zechariah. 

Zechariah  ('"^^1-1?  Jehovah  remembers,  LXX.  Zaxa- 
ptas)  is  styled  in  chap.  i.  1  the  son  of  Berechiah,  the 
son  of  Iddo.  The  latter  was  one  of  the  priests  who 
returned  with  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  (Neh.  xii.  4,  16 ; 
Ezra  V.  1,  vi.  14).  The  Book  of  Zechariah  is  divided 
into  two  portions.  I.  The  first  consists  of  chap,  i.-viii., 
*the  genuineness  of  which  is  undisputed.  This  portion 
contains  {a)  an  exhortation  to  repentance  (chap.  i. 
1-6),  followed  by  (6)  seven  apocalyptic  visions,  some- 
times counted  as  eight,  for  the  sixth  has  two  parts. 
These  visions,  like  those  of  the  Book  of  the  Reve- 
lation (comp.  Bev.  i.  19),  delineate  the  past  and  the 
present,  as  well  as  the  future.  1.  The  vision  of  the 
Angelic  Riders,  which  is  accompanied  by  a  partial  expla- 
nation (chap.  i.  7-1 7).  2.  That  of  the  Four  Horns,  and 
of  the  Four  Smiths,  raised  up  to  put  an  end  to  the  de- 
structive power  of  the  horns  (chap.  i.  18-21).  3.  That 
of  t\iQMan  luith  the  Measuring -line,  which,  is  followed  by 
the  Angel's  address  to  tlie  prophet  (chap,  ii.)      4.  The 


222     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

High  Priest  Joshua  before  the  Angel ;  the  accusation 
of  Satan ;  the  rebuke  of  the  Adversary ;  the  restora- 
tion of  Joshua  to  favour,  and  the  adjuration  of  him 
by  the  Angel  (chap,  iii.)  5.  The  Vision  of  the  Golden 
Candlestick,  with  its  explanation  (chap.  iv.).  6.  The 
Vision  of  the  Flying  Roll,  with  the  curse  written  on 
both  sides,  and  of  the  Woman  in  the  Ephah  symbolising 
Wickedness  and  her  instruments,  with  her  temporary 
rescue  from  destruction  (chap.  v.).  7.  The  Vision  of 
the  Four  Chariots.  That  vision  is  evidently  based 
upon  Daniel's  vision  of  the  four  empires,  and  is  in- 
cidentally evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  (chap.  vi.  1-8).  The  Seven  Visions  are  followed 
(c)  by  a  remarkable  description  of  the  crowning  of 
the  High  Priest,  indicating  symbolically  the  crowning 
of  Messiah,  the  Branch,  as  Priest  and  King  (chap.  vi. 
9-15).  Next  follow  {d)  chap,  vii.,  viii.,  which  narrate 
how  a  deputation  came  from  Bethel  to  inquire  about 
fasts  (chap.  vii.  1-7),  an  account  which  is  succeeded  by 
two  comforting  discourses  delivered  by  the  prophet. 

II.  The  second  part  of  the  book  (chap,  ix.-xiv.) 
has  been  the  subject  of  much  critical  controversy. 
Many  critics  maintain  that  the  second  portion  is 
composed  of  prophecies  belonging  to  different  periods, 
and  by  different  authors,  which  have  been  appended 
to  the  Book  of  Zechariah.  Chap,  ix.-xi.,  with  chap, 
xiii.  7-9,  are  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  written 
prior  to  the  Exile  by  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah. 
Chap,  xii.-xiv.  (with  the  omission  of  chap.  xiii.  7-9) 
are  supposed  by  these  critics  to  have  been  written 
by  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah.  Other  critics, 
however,   maintain   that   the   whole    of    the    latter 


THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAH.  223 

portion  of  Zechariah  is  post-exilic,  even  if  written 
by  a  different  prophet.  The  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  genuineness  and  unity  of  the  book  overweigh  in 
our  opinion  those  adduced  on  the  other  side.  The 
historical  references  in  the  early  portion  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  book  do  not  correspond  with  the  events 
of  pre-exilic  days.  The  chapters  in  question  depict 
rather  the  judgments  which  actually  fell  on  various 
portions  of  Syria  and  Palestine  during  the  Grecian 
period,  and  led  to  the  absorption  of  the  residue 
of  the  Philistines  into  the  body  politic  of  Israel. 
Those  judgments  helped  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  Messiah,  who  is  depicted  by  the  prophet  as 
coming  in  lowly  guise.  The  Maccabean  period  is 
the  subject-matter  of  a  considerable  portion  of  these 
prophecies.  Chap.  x.  describes  the  war  of  the 
sons  of  Zion  against  Greece,  although  the  old  pro- 
phetic symbols  of  Assyria  and  Egypt  are  made  use 
of  at  the  close  of  that  prophecy.  Chap,  xi.,  xdi.  refer 
also  to  the  same  period,  the  outlines  of  which  epoch  are 
sketched  down  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  to  His 
rejection  by  the  people  of  Israel.  The  -^/ivid  description 
of  the  moiu*ning  in  chap.  xii.  is  most  remarkable. 
All  families  are  described  as  mourning;  wives, 
husbands,  each  "  apart "  from  one  another  in  Jeru- 
salem and  throughout  the  land.  The  frequent  repe- 
tition of  the  idea  of  each  individual  mourning  "apart" 
indicates  that  point  to  be  the  chief  feature  in  the 
picture.  The  mourning  is  different  from  that  described 
in  Ezek.  vii.  16-18,  27,  and,  though  inconceivable  as 
an  actual  literal  fact,  has  been  realised  in  that  indi- 
vidual penitential  mourning  for  Christ  on  the  part 


224    THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

of  all  bdievers  in  Him  which  is  still  in  process  of 
fulfilment.  Chap.  xiii.  strikingly  depicts  the  reac- 
tion against  false  prophets  in  the  post-exilic  period, 
which  ultimately  led  to  the  rejection  of  the  true 
Prophet  of  Israel.  The  closing  chapter  of  the  book 
(chap,  xiv.)  contains  passages  which  are  highly 
apocalyptic,  and  were  never  designed  to  be  under- 
stood literally.  It  depicts  rather  "the  last  things 
as  seen  in  the  Hght  of  the  Old  Testament."  The 
Messianic  passages  in  chap,  ix.,  xi.,  xii.  and  xiii.  are 
of  the  highest  importance. 

2.  The  literature  on  the  Book  of  Zechariah  is  very  ex- 
tensive. Besides  the  works  noted  pp.  173,  199,  Philip 
Melanchthon,  Comm.  in  inopli.  ZacJi.,  Opera,  ii.,  Grynteus 
(1581),  Calvin  (1610),  J.  H.  Ursinus  (1652),  and  others  of 
the  Keformers  wrote  learned  commentaries  on  the  book,  as 
did  Vitringa  (1734),  Venema  (1789),  etc.  Blayney's  Com- 
mentary, 1797,  is  almost  antiquated.  Of  the  more  modern 
may  be  mentioned  Koster,  Meleteniata  crlt.  et  exeg.  in  Zqch. 
partem  postcT.,  1818.  Forberg,  on  the  same  portion,  also  in 
Latin,  1824.  Hengstenberg  on  the  Integrity  of  Zechariah^ 
1831,  has  been  translated  into  English  (T.  and  T.  Clark). 
F,  Burger,  Etvdes  exegUigues  et  critigiies,  1841.  Bleek,  Das 
Zeitalter  von  Sacharja,  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1852.  M.  Baum- 
garten,  1854.  Monographs  by  Sandrock  in  defence  of  the 
unity,  1856 ;  by  von  Ortenberg  against  it,  1859.  W.  Neumann, 
1860 ;  Kliefoth,  1862  ;  Kohler,  p.  220.  C.  H.  H.  Wright, 
Bampton  Lectures  on  Zechariah  and  his  prophecies,  with 
crit.  and  gram,  comm.,  1879.  Bredenkamp,  Der  Proph. 
Sack.,  1879,  was  published  simultaneously.  W.  H.  Lowe, 
The  Hehrem  Student's  Commentary  on  Zechariah,  1882. 
B.  Stade,  Deuterozacharja,  eine  kritische  Studie,  in  the 
Zeitschrift  filr  die  alt-test.  Wissenschaft,  1881  and  1882. 
Of  the  Kabbinical  writers,  David  KimchVs  Comm.  on 
Zech.,  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  has  been   edited,  v.ith 


TEE   BOOK  OF   MALACUI.  225 

notes,  by  Ales.  McCaul,  1837 ;  and  the  Yalliut  on  Zechariah^ 
translated,  with  notes  and  appendix,  by  E.  G.  King,  1882. 
The  Post-exilian  Prophets^  by  Marcus  Dods,  1879.  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  and  MalacM,  by  Ven.  T.  T.  Perowne,  in  Cambridge 
Bible  for  Schools,  1886-1889.  W.  Lindsay  Alexander,  Zechariah, 
his  Visions  and  Warnings,  1885.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Origin  of  Book 
of  Zechariah  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  Oct.,  1888.  The 
commentary  of  Bosanquet,  and  many  other  such  like,  are 
utterly  worthless,  (See  Appendix.') 

§  12.  Malachi. 
1.  Nothing  whatever  is  known  respecting  the  his- 
tory or  person  of  Malachi.  The  name  '•p^^^Q  would 
naturally  signify  ^^  my  angel"  as  in  chap.  iii.  1.  It 
is,  however,  quite  possible  to  render  it  with  Gesenius 
and  Winer,  by  angelicus — i.e.  one  standing  in  some 
connection  with  an  angel.  Hence  some  of  the  ancients 
derived  the  fancy  that  these  prophecies  were  delivered 
by  angelic  hands ;  while  others  regarded  the  word  as  a 
name  of  office,  my  messenger.  Jonathan  ben  XJzziel  in 
theTargum  accordingly  supposes  Ezra  the  scribe  to  have 
been  referred  to.  The  LXX.  in  the  superscription 
regard  the  word  as  a  proper  name,  MaAa^tas ;  but  in 
the  text  (chap.  i.  1)  they  render  the  word  Iv  x'^'P' 
ayyiXov  avrov.  The  name  ''P^^?^  was  in  all  proba- 
bility a  curtailed  form,  -in^StS.^O  or  ri*3^^.^D.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  Malachi  was  a  contemporary  of  Nehemiah, 
and  prophesied  between  the  period  of  that  governor's 
first  and  second  residence  in  Judsea.  Compare  the 
reference  in  chap.  i.  8  with  Neh.  v.  14.  The  circum- 
stances noted  in  Neh.  xiii.  correspond  with  the  in- 
dications given  in  the  Book  of  Malachi.  The  prophet 
denounces  the  presentation  of  inferior  victims  on  the 

15 


226     THE  TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

altar,  the  looseness  in  matrimonial  relations,  and 
the  spirit  of  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  priests, 
all  of  which  indicated  a  sad  falling  off  in  religious 
fervour.  In  a  portion  of  the  book  the  dialogue  form 
is  made  use  of.  The  announcement  of  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  in  judgment  preceded  by  His  forerunner 
(chap.  iii.  1,  iv.  1,  2)  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
prophecies  of  the  book.  Elijah,  the  prophet  here 
spoken  of,  was  declared  by  our  Lord  to  be  John  the 
Baptist  (Matt.  xi.  14,  xvii.  10-13;  Mark  ix.  11-13) 
although  some  have  strangely  maintained,  in  spite  of 
those  distinct  declarations,  that  a  future  advent  of 
Elijah  the  prophet  is  to  be  looked  for.  The  Divine 
character  of  the  Messiah  is  not  obscurely  hinted  at  in 
chap.  iii.  1.  The  attempts  of  Romish  theologians  to 
twist  chap.  i.  11  and  chap.  iii.  4  into  predictions  of 
"  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  "  will  deceive  no  one  who 
is  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  Old  Testament  pro- 
phecies of  the  future  are  depicted  in  the  light,  and 
with  the  symbols,  of  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  On  the  literature  of  the  book  consult  pp.  173,  199.  Dav. 
Chytraeus,  Explic.  Mai.,  1568 ;  J.  J.  Grynreus,  Hyjjomnemata 
in  Mai.,  1582  ;  latest  edition  1612.  S.  Bohlius,  Mai.  Proph. 
cum  C07)wi.  JRahhinoruni,  1637.  J.  H.  Ursinus,  Comm.,  1652. 
J.  Wessel,  Malach.  eniicleaUis,  1729.  Ed.  Pococke's  Commentary 
on  the  Prophecy  of  Malachi,  in  his  Worhs,  1740,  is  valuable. 
H.  Venema.  Comm.  ad  lib.  Mai.,  1763.  C.  F.  Bahrdt,  1768. 
Reinke  (Eom.  Cath.),  Per  Proph.  Malachi,  1856.  A.  Kohler, 
see  p.  220.  Marcus  Dods,  in  T.  and  T.  Clark's  Handbooks 
for  Bible  Classes,  and  T.  T.  Perowne,  in  the  Cambridge  Bible^ 
have  given  useful  commentaries  on  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and 
Malachi, 


APPENDIX 


THE  Cairo  MSS.,  mentioned  p.  21,  have  been  recently 
examined  by  Prof.  Ad.  Merx,  who  has  informed  me  that 
the  dates  given  in  the  text  are  those  found  in  the  epigraphs 
in  the  MSS. 

Page  7.  The  3rd  edition  of  Ewald's  History  of  the  People 
of  Israel  was  translated  into  English  by  J.  Estlin  Carpenter, 
who  was  the  editor  of  the  volumes  composing  the  Old  Test, 
portion.  The  other  volumes  were  edited  by  J.  F.  Smith.  The 
4th  edition  has  been  translated  by  Prof.  R.  Martineau,  and 
of  this  edition  vols.  i.  and  ii.  appeared  in  1883. 

Page  8.  The  Germ,  transl.  of  Kuenen's  work  by  Weber  is 
a  translation  of  the  second  edition,  while  the  French  transl.  by 
Dr.  Pierson  was  made  from  the  first  edition.  The  two  editions 
are  considerably  different,  for  Kuenen  when  he  published  his 
first  edition  had  not  embraced  Graf's  views.  See  addition  to 
p.  95  in  this  Appendix. 

Page  8.  Fr.  Buhl,  who  has  been  called  from  Copenhagen 
to  Leipzig  to  fill  the  chair  left  vacant  by  the  death  of  Prof. 
Franz  Delitzsch,  has  published  an  important  work,  Kanon  u. 
Text  des  Alt.  Test,  Leipzig  1891,  262  pp.,  8vo. 

Page  28.  The  Hebrew- English  Lexicon  (mentioned  in  the 
Preface,  p.  xi)  by  Professors  Driver,  Briggs,  and  Brown,  is 
now  in  the  press,  and  will  probably  be  issued  in  parts.  The 
German  scholars,  Professors  Stade  of  Giessen  and  C.  Siegfried 
of  Jena,  have  also  in  the  press  a  new  Heh.  Worterhuch,  which 
is  expected  to  be  completed  next  year  (1S92). 


228  APPENDIX. 

Page  33.  The  diflScult  question  here  alluded  to — namely, 
the  prohibition  to  commit  to  writing  anything  except  the  Holy 
Scriptures — will  be  found  discussed  more  in  detail  in  Strack's 
Mnleitung  in  den  Thalnmd,  Leipzig,  1887,  pp.  38  ff.  Such 
prohibitions,  although  generally  attended  to,  may,  it  is  obvious, 
not  have  been  always  observed. 

Page  34.  Dr.  Ludwig  Blau's  MasoretiHche  U7iters'iichungen, 
Strassburg  1891,  reviewed  by  Dr.  Ad.  Neubauer  in  the  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review,  April  1891,  with  P.  de  Lagarde's  Das 
alteste  Glied  d.  mass.  Traditionsliette,  in  the  Gottingen  Nach- 
richt.,  1890,  p.  95  ff.,  are  important  new  contributions  to  the 
Massorah  literature. 

Page  35.  The  word  np  was  by  the  old  scholars  always 
pointed  np  (K'ri),  and  regarded  as  a  participle  passive.  But 
Luzzatto  has  pointed  out  that  that  vocalization,  though  the  most 
general,  is  incorrect,  because  the  word  is  really  a  preterite, 
and  therefore  should  be  pointed  np  (K're).  See  Luzzatto, 
Gramm.  der  HhL-chald.  Sjirache,  p,  32  note,  and  Kautzsch, 
Gramm.  der  MU.-Aram.,  p.  81  note. 

Page  54.  An  English  translation  of  Schiirer's  important 
work  on  the  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
Christ  has  now  been  published  by  T.  and  T.  Clark. 

Page  55.  Graetz,  in  a  short  article  contributed  to  the 
Jewish  Quarterly  Revieio  for  Oct.  1890,  pp.  150-158,  gives 
reasons,  based  on  internal  evidence,  why  the  LXX.  could  not 
have  been  composed  prior  to  Maccabean  times,  although  it 
could  not  have  been  made  much  later.  But  his  arguments 
would  be  quite  consistent  with  the  theory  of  a  revision  about 
that  time  of  the  Greek  version  which  was  then  in  use.  Prof. 
Swete  of  Cambridge  has  replied  to  Graetz  in  the  Exjjository 
Times  of  June  1891. 

Page  57.  Attention  ought  to  have  been  drawn,  among  the 
works  which  have  appeared  on  the  several  books  of  the  LXX. 
translation,  to  Hatch's  important  lecture  "  On  Origen's  Revision 
of  the  LXX.  Text  of  Job,"  in  his  Essays  in  Biblical  Gre^h, 


APPENDIX.  229 

Oxford  1889.  B.  Jacob's  article,  "Das  Buch  Esther  bei  den 
LXX.,"  ia  Stade's  Zeitschrift  filr  die  alt-test.  Wissenschaft 
for  1890,  will  be  found  referred  to  in  our  remarks  on  the 
literature  of  the  Book  of  Esther  (p.  146),  but  ought  also  to 
have  been  noticed  here. 

Page  95.  It  ought  to  be  observed  here  that  Prof.  Kuenen. 
not  only  defended  Graf's  hypothesis,  when  generally  rejected 
by  scholars,  but  developed  it  further,  placing  it  on  a  firmer 
basis  by  getting  rid  of  the  diflScnlty  with  which  Graf  had 
encumbered  that  theory.  For  Graf  maintained  that  what 
is  now  designated  "  the  Priestly  Code  "  consisted  of  two  parts, 
— the  narrative  portion  by  "the  older  Elohist,"  which  was 
extremely  ancient,  and  the  legislative  portion,  which  belonged, 
according  to  his  view,  to  the  post-exilian  period.  Kuenen, 
however,  maintains  that  those  two  portions  really  belong 
to  one  work,  and  are  the  latest  parts  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Wellhausen's  views  have  been  largely  influenced  by  Kuenen, 
although  the  former  scholar  has  shown  much  originality  in 
the  historical  application  of  the  theory. 

Page  98.  The  exception  to  this  statement  is  that  the 
ridge-pole  of  the  tabernacle  is  not  distinctly  mentioned  ;  nor 
is  the  mode  explained  by  which  that  ridge-pole,  or  the  ridge- 
rope  used  in  its  stead,  was  supported  and  kept  from  drooping 
in  the  centre.  The  old  pictures,  which  represent  the  roof  of 
the  tabernacle  with  its  outer  covering  of  skins  as  flat,  have  long 
since  been  shown  to  be  misleading.  See  Fergusson's  article 
on  the  Tabernacle  and  Temple  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary. 

Page  102.  Many  new  contributions  on  the  critical  questions 
connected  with  the  Pentateuch  have  since  appeared,  such  as 
E.  B.  Girdlestone's  Foundations  of  the  Bible :  Studies  in  Old 
Test.  Critioism  (London  1890)  ;  Klostermann,  Beitrdge  znr 
Entstehungsgeschiehte  das  Pent.  I.  ^^  Per  Grund-fehler  aller 
hentigen  Pentateuchkritih"  in  the  Nene  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift 
for  1890,  Hefte  9  and  10  ;  C.  G.  Montefiore,  '■^Recent  CHticism 
upon  Moses  and  the  Pent,  narratives  of  the  Decalogue^''  in 
the  Jewish  Quarterly  Revieic  for  Jan.  1891.  In  the  same 
review  will  be  found  Prof.  Gratz  on  "  The  Central  Sanctuary 


230  APPENDIX. 

of  Devteronomy^^  and  A.  Kohut's  "  Parsic  and  Jewish  Litera- 
ture of  the  First  3fan"  C.  H.  Cornill  has  contributed  the 
first  of  his  Beitrdge  ziir  PentateucliTiritili,  on  Gen.  xxxiv., 
to  Stade's  Zeitschrift,  Heft.  I.  for  1891.  Important  is  H. 
Brugsch,  Die  MUischen  Siehen  Jahre  der  Hungersnoth  nach 
dem  Wortlaut  e  altdgyjJt.  Felsen-Inscfirift.  Leipzig,  1891,  mit 
32  autogr.  Taf.  u.  5  Holzschn. 

Page  103.  See  on  Ewald,  additional  note  to  p.  7  in  this 
Appendix.  A  first  vol.  of  an  English  translation  of  Eenan's 
Hist,  du  Peuple  d'lsrael,  giving  the  history  up  to  the  capture 
of  Samaria,  appeared  in  1889  (Chapman  and  Hall). 

Page  109.  Among  the  additions  to  the  literature  of  Genesis, 
besides  the  "  Zweite  vielfach  verbesserte  Auflage  "  of  Kautzsch 
and  Socin's  Genesis  mit  dusserer  Unterscheidung  der  Quellen- 
scliriften,  1891,  may  be  mentioned:  O.  Naumann,  Das  erste 
Buch  der  Bibel,  mit  seiner  inneren  Einheit  u.  Echtheit 
dargestellt,  GUtersloh,  1890 ;  Th.  Noldeke's  short  article, 
^^  Der  Paradiesfiuss  Gihon  in  Aralien  ? '^  in  the  Zeitschrift 
der  Dentsch.  Morgenl.  Gesellschaft,  Heft  IV.  for  1890.  Pro- 
fessor Kautzsch  has,  in  combination  with  other  eminent 
scholars,  begun  a  critical  translation  of  the  Old  Test.,  in 
which  the  various  documents  are  specially  noted.  The  first 
three  parts,  comprehending  the  Hexateuch,  are  now  published. 
Freiburg  in  B.,  1890,  1891. 

Page  121.  To  the  literature  on  Joshua  should  be  added  Em. 
Albers,  Die  Quellenlerichte  in  Josh.  i. — xii.  Beitrag  zur 
Quellenh'itih  des  Jlexateuchs,  Bonn,  1891.  Under  the  litera- 
ture illustrative  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  might  be  mentioned 
the  recent  contributions  to  the  geography  of  Palestine,  which 
are  all  important  in  connexion  with  the  thorough  criticism  of 
that  book.  Want  of  space,  however,  has  forbidden  our  enter- 
ing on  such  a  prolific  subject. 

Page  146.  Scholz  has  written  on  the  names  which  occur  in 
the  Book  of  Esther,  in  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1890,  and  Zim- 
mern  on  the  origin  of  the  Feast  of  Purim  in  Stade's  Zeitschrifi 
for  1891. 


APPENDIX.  231 

Page  152.  To  the  literature  of  the  book  of  Job  must  be 
added  the  important  work  of  Prof.  Johann  Georg  Ernst 
Hoffmann,  Hioh,  Kiel,  1891.  This  small  treatise  of  only  106 
pages  contains  an  introduction,  translation,  and  short  critical 
notes.  Hoffmann  assigns  Job  to  a  postexilic  date.  Prof. 
Cheyne  has  already  reviewed  Hoffmann  in  the  Critical 
Revieio,  May  1891.  J.  Grill  has  also  written  Zur  Kritih  der 
Composition  des  Buches  Ilioh,  1890. 

Page  159.  A  very  handy  and  useful  book  for  the  general 
student  acquainted  with  German  is  Die  Psahnen  :  Hehraischer 
Text  mit  einer  hirzen  Auslegnng.  Nach  Dr.  Aug.  Heiligstedt's 
Tode  fortgesetzt  und  zu  Ende  gefiihrt  von  Dr.  Max  Badie. 
Halle,  1888.  Prof.  Kirkpatrick  has  published  vol.  i.  of  the 
Psalms  (Ps.  1, — xli.)  in  the  Cambridge  Bible,  1891. 

Page  163.  Mr.  E.  F.  Horton's  work  on  the  Booh  of 
ProverhSy  in  the  Expositor's  Bible,  1891,  is  a  valuable  contri- 
bution to  exegesis. 

Page  167.  Among  the  newer  contributions  to  the  literature 
of  Ecclesiastes  are  :  W.  Volck  in  Die  'poet.  Hagiograjjlia,  in 
Strach  and  Zoclder's  Comm.,  1889  ;  the  work  of  the  Swedish 
Professor,  0.  F.  Myrberg,  Prediliarehohen  ofversatt  och  forh- 
lared,  Stockholm,  1889 ;  A.  Lods,  EEccUsiaste  et  la  Philo- 
sophie  grecque,  Paris,  1890. 

Page  182.  On  Isaiah  of  importance  are :  J.  Barth,  Beitrdge  zur 
ErUdrung  des  Jesaia,  1885 ;  F.  Giesebrecht,  Beitrdge  zur 
Jesaialirltih  :  nehst  einer  Studie  ilher  proplietisclie  Schrift- 
stellerei,  Gottingen,  1890  ;  B.  Blake,  B.D.,  How  to  read  Isaiah, 
being  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah  arranged  in  order,  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1891. 

Page  191.  On  Ezekiel,  Professor  L.  Gaiitier  of  Lausanne  has 
published  La  3Iission  du  ProphHe  tzeehiel,  Lausanne,  1891  ; 
and  E.  Selle,  Be  Aramaismis  libri  Ezechieles,  Halle,  1890. 

Page  198.  Among  the  monographs  on  Daniel  may  be  in- 
cluded the  following  :  Fulfilled  Prophecg,  a  proof  of  the  Truth 
of  Revealed  Religion ;  being  the  Warburtonian  I^ectures  for 
1854-1858 ;    with    an    Appendix  of  Notes,  including  a  full 


232  APPENDIX. 


investicration  of  Daniel's  Prophecy  of  the  Seventy  Weeks.  By 
the  Very  Eev.  W.  Goode,  D.D.,  F.S.  A.,  Dean  of  Eipon.  Second 
edition.  Edited  by  the  Eev.  E.  W.  BuUinger,  D.D.,  1890  ;  also 
A.  Bludan,  De  Alex,  interp.  l%b.  Ban.  indole  crit.  et  lierm. 
Pars  I.  Mlinster  in  W.  1891.  Knahenbaner  has  just  issued 
a  Comm.  in  Daniel proph.  Lam.  et  Baruch,  Paris  1891,  pp.  520. 

Page  215.  A  critical  work  of  value  has  been  published  on 
Micah  by  an  English  scholar :  The  Massoretic  Text  and  tlie 
Ancient  Versions  of  the  Booh  of  3Iicah.  By  John  Taylor, 
M.A.,  Dr.  Litt.  (Lond.).     Williams  and  Norgate,  1891. 

Page  225.  Professor  H.  Graetz  has  written  in  the  Jewish 
Quarterly  Beview  for  January  1891  on  "  The  Last  Chapter 
of  Zechariah."  Whatever  Graetz  writes  deserves  attention, 
although  we  cannot  adopt  his  views  as  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  chapter  in  question.  Prof.  George  Hoffmann  of 
Kiel  has,  in  his  Hioh,  noticed  at  p.  230,  some  important 
remarks  on  Zechariah  and  its  relation  to  that  book.  Hoffmann 
has  expressed  himself  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  unity  of 
Zechariah. 


THF.    END. 


Printed  ly  HazeU,  WaUon,  ^  Vir.ey,  Ld.,  London  and  Aylalury. 


\    .^"f 

Z-^; 


f     ■' 


1?:.-\ 


Alf, 


|^SdS;?olheO>6  Testament 

P„ncelon  Theolwical  Semmarj-Spw  bbrar. 


1   1012  00047  7721 


